4.7 Article

Regional variability and genotypic and pharmacodynamic effects on PrP concentration in the CNS

期刊

JCI INSIGHT
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.156532

关键词

-

资金

  1. Prion Alliance
  2. CJD Foundation
  3. Ionis Pharmaceuticals
  4. National Institutes of Health [R21 TR003040]
  5. Ono Pharma Foundation
  6. Broad Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PrP concentration varies across brain regions and species. PrP expression does not contribute to known risk factors. CSF PrP concentration is reduced in the presence of rare pathogenic PRNP variants, and CSF can be used as a sampling compartment for evaluating PrP-lowering therapy.
Prion protein (PrP) concentration controls the kinetics of prion replication and is a genetically and pharmacologically validated therapeutic target for prion disease. In order to evaluate PrP concentration as a pharmacodynamic biomarker and assess its contribution to known prion disease risk factors, we developed and validated a plate-based immunoassay reactive for PrP across 6 species of interest and applicable to brain and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). PrP concentration varied dramatically across different brain regions in mice, cynomolgus macaques, and humans. PrP expression did not appear to contribute to the known risk factors of age, sex, or common PRNP genetic variants. CSF PrP was lowered in the presence of rare pathogenic PRNP variants, with heterozygous carriers of P102L displaying 55%, and D178N just 31%, of the CSF PrP concentration of mutation-negative controls. In rodents, pharmacologic reduction of brain Prnp RNA was reflected in brain parenchyma PrP and, in turn in CSF PrP, validating CSF as a sampling compartment for the effect of PrP-lowering therapy. Our findings support the use of CSF PrP as a pharmacodynamic biomarker for PrP-lowering drugs and suggest that relative reduction from individual baseline CSF PrP concentration may be an appropriate marker for target engagement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据