Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Neurodegenerative Disease Treatment Strategy Sparked by Novel DLK Inhibitor

Neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease involve progressive neuronal loss due to disease-induced damage. An enzyme known as dual leucine-zipper kinase (DLK) plays a key role in this process, telling neurons that are dam

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease involve progressive neuronal loss due to disease-induced damage. An enzyme known as dual leucine-zipper kinase (DLK) plays a key role in this process, telling neurons that are damaged or unhealthy when they should cut their losses and self-destruct. While sparing neurons from DLK represents a potential therapeutic strategy for slowing disease progression, a clinical trial testing a DLK inhibitor in human patients resulted in unexpected side effects affecting the nervous system, suggesting that blocking DLK indiscriminately is harmful.

A group of scientists led by Gareth Thomas, PhD, associate professor of neural sciences at the Center for Neural Development and Repair at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, has now reported on what they suggest is a more precise way to block DLK in damaged neurons, while preserving its function in healthy neurons.

The team suggests that their preclinical research, through which they identified a new type of DLK inhibitor, could reignite interest in DLK inhibition as a treatment strategy for neurodegenerative diseases. Thomas and colleagues published their findings in Nature Communications (“Inhibiting acute, axonal DLK palmitoylation is neuroprotective and avoids deleterious effects of cell-wide DLK inhibition”) concluding, “These new classes of inhibitors thus reduce DLK-dependent pro-degenerative retrograde signaling without causing side effects associated with global DLK inhibition.”

Dual-leucine zipper kinase is an upstream activator (a “MAP3K”) of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways that is highly expressed in neurons, the authors explained. Axons are the long, thin projections on neurons that convey impulses within the brain and spinal cord and to other regions of the body. When axons are damaged, DLK sends signals from the site of injury in the axon back to the neuron’s nucleus, which triggers the self-destruct process. “DLK functions as an evolutionarily conserved stress sensor, and one major role of DLK is to convey retrograde signals from sites of axonal damage or disruption back to neuronal nuclei,” the scientists continued.

Research results have previously indicated that inhibiting DLK’s kinase activity could be a promising therapeutic strategy to prevent different types of neurodegeneration, and this encouraged the development of DLK kinase inhibitors, one of which progressed into a Phase I clinical trial. However, as the authors noted, “… numerous patients in this trial developed symptoms indicative of sensory neuropathy which, along with other adverse events, led a significant proportion of those enrolled to reduce or cease dosage.” Further analysis showed that DLK inhibitor therapy increased plasma levels of neurofilament, “suggestive of axonal cytoskeletal disruption.” The findings, the team further noted, “… suggested that broadly inhibiting DLK’s kinase activity causes deleterious side effects, cautioning against such a therapeutic approach.”

Thomas further noted, “This clinical finding suggested that the conventional DLK inhibitor might be disrupting the normal structure and function of axons.” Confirming this idea, when the scientists treated cultured neurons with an existing DLK inhibitor, they saw that axonal structure was rapidly disrupted. This inspired them to seek an alternative approach to more selectively block the enzyme.

For their newly reported study, Thomas and colleagues considered the way damage affects axons. “From some of our previous research, we knew that DLK initiates the self-destruction signals from very specific locations in neurons,” Thomas further commented. “We thought that if we could stop DLK getting to those locations, it wouldn’t be able to initiate the self-destruction process.” The team’s previous work had shown that DLK is modified with the lipid palmitate. “This modification, palmitoylation, targets DLK to lipid membranes and in neurons is critical for DLK to hitchhike on axonal trafficking vesicles,” they wrote.

Working with Wayne Childers, PhD, at the Moulder Center for Drug Discovery in Temple’s School of Pharmacy and with Margret Einarson, PhD, at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Thomas’s team sought to identify compounds that alter the location of DLK in cells. “We screened more than 28,000 compounds and eventually hit on two in particular that protect neurons from DLK-driven damage,” Thomas said. The two compounds not only protected cultured neurons from degeneration but also reduced DLK signaling in animal models.

Importantly, the compounds did not cause the axonal disruption observed with the conventional DLK inhibitor. “Mechanistically, the two most neuroprotective compounds selectively prevent DLK’s stimulus-dependent palmitoylation and subsequent recruitment to axonal vesicles, but do not affect palmitoylation of other axonal proteins assessed and avoid the cytoskeletal disruption associated with direct DLK inhibition,” the investigators explained.

“Our findings reveal an exciting, novel way to block DLK-dependent signals,” Thomas added. The next steps involve working with medicinal chemists to make the compounds more potent and even more specific to minimize off-target effects. “The current compounds also need to be made more stable if we want to move forward and develop them as drugs,” Thomas noted. “We hope that moving this class of compounds toward the clinic may yield a valuable therapy for patients in the future.”

This study exemplifies the innovative spirit and collaborative strength of our research community at the Katz School of Medicine,” said Amy J. Goldberg, MD, FACS, the Marjorie Joy Katz Dean of the Lewis Katz School of Medicine. “By uncovering a more precise way to protect neurons, Dr. Thomas and his team are paving the way for treatments that could truly change the trajectory of neurodegenerative diseases.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →