Phenotype-Agnostic Molecular Subtyping of Neurodegenerative Disorders: The Cincinnati Cohort Biomarker Program (CCBP).

Ongoing biomarker development programs have been designed to identify serologic or imaging signatures of clinico-pathologic entities, assuming distinct biological boundaries between them. Identified putative biomarkers have exhibited large variability and inconsistency between cohorts, and remain inadequate for selecting suitable recipients for potential disease-modifying interventions. We launched the Cincinnati Cohort Biomarker Program (CCBP) as a population-based, phenotype-agnostic longitudinal study. While patients affected by a wide range of neurodegenerative disorders will be deeply phenotyped using clinical, imaging, and mobile health technologies, analyses will not be anchored on phenotypic clusters but on bioassays of to-be-repurposed medications as well as on genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, epigenomics, microbiomics, and pharmacogenomics analyses blinded to phenotypic data. Unique features of this cohort study include (1) a reverse biology-to-phenotype direction of biomarker development in which clinical, imaging, and mobile health technologies are subordinate to biological signals of interest; (2) hypothesis free, causally- and data driven-based analyses; (3) inclusive recruitment of patients with neurodegenerative disorders beyond clinical criteria-meeting patients with Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, and (4) a large number of longitudinally followed participants. The parallel development of serum bioassays will be aimed at linking biologically suitable subjects to already available drugs with repurposing potential in future proof-of-concept adaptive clinical trials. Although many challenges are anticipated, including the unclear pathogenic relevance of identifiable biological signals and the possibility that some signals of importance may not yet be measurable with current technologies, this cohort study abandons the anchoring role of clinico-pathologic criteria in favor of biomarker-driven disease subtyping to facilitate future biosubtype-specific disease-modifying therapeutic efforts.

Disease modification and biomarker development in Parkinson disease: Revision or reconstruction?

A fundamental question in advancing Parkinson disease (PD) research is whether it represents one disorder or many. Does each genetic PD inform a common pathobiology or represent a unique entity? Do the similarities between genetic and idiopathic forms of PD outweigh the differences? If aggregates of α-synuclein in Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites are present in most (α-synucleinopathies), are they also etiopathogenically significant in each (α-synuclein pathogenesis)? Does it matter that postmortem studies in PD have demonstrated that mixed protein-aggregate pathology is the rule and pure α-synucleinopathy the exception? Should we continue to pursue convergent biomarkers that are representative of the diverse whole of PD or subtype-specific, divergent biomarkers, present in some but absent in most? Have clinical trials that failed to demonstrate efficacy of putative disease-modifying interventions been true failures (shortcomings of the hypotheses, which should be rejected) or false failures (shortcomings of the trials; hypotheses should be preserved)? Each of these questions reflects a nosologic struggle between the lumper's clinicopathologic model that embraces heterogeneity of one disease and the splitter's focus on a pathobiology-specific set of diseases. Most important, even if PD is not a single disorder, can advances in biomarkers and disease modification be revised to concentrate on pathologic commonalities in large, clinically defined populations? Or should our efforts be reconstructed to focus on smaller subgroups of patients, distinguished by well-defined molecular characteristics, regardless of their phenotypic classification? Will our clinical trial constructs be revised to target larger and earlier, possibly even prodromal, cohorts? Or should our trials efforts be reconstructed to target smaller but molecularly defined presymptomatic or postsymptomatic cohorts? At the Krembil Knowledge Gaps in Parkinson's Disease Symposium, the tentative answers to these questions were discussed, informed by the failures and successes of the fields of breast cancer and cystic fibrosis.

Triggers, Facilitators, and Aggravators: Redefining Parkinson's Disease Pathogenesis.

We hypothesize that Parkinson's disease (PD) pathogenesis can be divided into three temporal phases. During the first phase, 'triggers', such as viral infections or environmental toxins, spark the disease process in the brain and/or peripheral tissues. Triggers alone, however, may be insufficient, requiring 'facilitators' like peripheral inflammation for PD pathology to develop. Once the disease manifests, 'aggravators' spur further neurodegeneration and exacerbate symptoms. Aggravators are proposed to include impaired autophagy and cell-to-cell propagation of α-synuclein pathology. We believe clinical trials need to consider these three phases and target potential therapies at the appropriate stage of the disease process in order to be effective.

Are PARKIN patients ideal candidates for dopaminergic cell replacement therapies?

Parkinson's is a heterogeneous, complex condition. Stratification of Parkinson's subtypes will be essential to identify those that will benefit most from a cell replacement therapy. Foetal mesencephalic grafts can alleviate motor symptoms in some Parkinson's patients. However, on-going synucleinopathy results in the grafts eventually developing Lewy bodies, and they begin to fail. We propose that Parkinson's patients with PARKIN mutations may benefit most from a cell replacement therapy because (a) they often lack synucleinopathy, and (b) their neurodegeneration is often confined to the nigrostriatal pathway. While patients with PARKIN mutations exhibit clinical signs of Parkinson's, post-mortem studies to date indicate the majority lack Lewy bodies suggesting the nigral dopaminergic neurons are lost in a cell autonomous manner independent of α-synuclein mechanisms. Furthermore, these patients are usually younger, slow progressing and typically do not suffer from complex non-nigral symptoms that are unlikely to be ameliorated by a cell replacement therapy. Transplantation of dopaminergic cells into the putamen of these patients will provide neurons with wild-type PARKIN expression to re-innervate the striatum. The focal nature of PARKIN-mediated neurodegeneration and lack of active synucleinopathy in most young-onset cases makes these patients ideal candidates for a dopaminergic cell replacement therapy. Strategies to improve the outcome of cell replacement therapies for sporadic Parkinson's include the use of adjunct therapeutics that target α-synuclein spreading and the use of genetically engineered grafts that are resistant to synucleinopathy.