Experiment ID
flowchart TD
experiments_regulated_necrosis["Regulated Necrosis Validation Study in Parkinson"]
experiments_regulated_necrosis["Experiment"]
experiments_regulated_necrosis -->|"related to"| experiments_regulated_necrosis
style experiments_regulated_necrosis fill:#81c784,stroke:#333,color:#000
experiments_regulated_necrosis["RN-PD-001"]
experiments_regulated_necrosis -->|"related to"| experiments_regulated_necrosis
style experiments_regulated_necrosis fill:#81c784,stroke:#333,color:#000
experiments_regulated_necrosis["Inhibition"]
experiments_regulated_necrosis -->|"related to"| experiments_regulated_necrosis
style experiments_regulated_necrosis fill:#81c784,stroke:#333,color:#000
experiments_regulated_necrosis["Patient"]
experiments_regulated_necrosis -->|"related to"| experiments_regulated_necrosis
style experiments_regulated_necrosis fill:#81c784,stroke:#333,color:#000
style experiments_regulated_necrosis fill:#4fc3f7,stroke:#333,color:#000
RN-PD-001 : Regulated Necrosis Pathway Inhibition in PD Patient Neurons
Hypothesis Simultaneous inhibition of necroptosis, parthanatos, and autosis pathways will provide superior neuroprotection in PD patient-derived dopaminergic neurons compared to single-pathway inhibition, reflecting the convergence of these pathways in disease pathogenesis.
Study Design
Phase 1: In vitro Validation (12 months) ...
Experiment ID
Mermaid diagram (expand to render)
RN-PD-001 : Regulated Necrosis Pathway Inhibition in PD Patient Neurons
Hypothesis Simultaneous inhibition of necroptosis, parthanatos, and autosis pathways will provide superior neuroprotection in PD patient-derived dopaminergic neurons compared to single-pathway inhibition, reflecting the convergence of these pathways in disease pathogenesis.
Study Design
Phase 1: In vitro Validation (12 months)
Objective Validate the presence and relative contribution of each regulated necrosis pathway in PD patient iPSC-derived dopaminergic neurons.
Methods
Cell lines : 6 PD patient iPSC lines (3 LRRK2 G2019S, 3GBA mutations) + 3 healthy controls
Differentiation : Protocol for dopaminergic neuron generation (70-80% TH+ neurons)
Pathway activation : MPTP (100μM), 6-OHDA (50μM), rotenone (10nM) for 48h
Endpoints | Pathway | Marker | Detection Method |
|---------|--------|-------------------|
| Necroptosis | p-[MLKL](/proteins/mlkl-protein), p-[RIPK3](/proteins/ripk3) | Western blot, immunofluorescence |
| Parthanatos | PAR polymers, [AIF](/proteins/aifm1-protein) nuclear translocation | ELISA, confocal microscopy |
| Autosis | [Cathepsin B](/proteins/cathepsin-b)/L activity, Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase | Activity assay, ouabain binding |
Sample Size
n=3 biological replicates per condition
n=6 technical replicates per condition
Phase 2: Drug Testing (18 months)
Objective Test the neuroprotective efficacy of pathway-specific and combination inhibitors.
Compounds to Test | Compound | Target | Dose | Source | |----------|--------|------|--------| | Necrostatin-1 | [RIPK1](/proteins/ripk1) | 10μM | Abcam | | Ponatinib | [RIPK1](/proteins/ripk1)/[RIPK3](/proteins/ripk3) | 1μM | Selleckchem | | Veliparib | [PARP1](/proteins/parp1)/2 | 10μM | Selleckchem | | Rucaparib | [PARP1](/proteins/parp1)/2 | 1μM | Selleckchem | | Cathepsin B inhibitor | [Cathepsin B](/proteins/cathepsin-b) | 10μM | MedChemExpress | | Ouabain (low dose) | Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase | 100nM | Sigma |
Combination Arms
Arm A : Necrostatin-1 + Veliparib
Arm B : Necrostatin-1 + Cathepsin inhibitor
Arm C : Triple combination (all three classes)
Arm D : Vehicle control (DMSO 0.1%)
Endpoints
Primary : Neuronal survival (MTT assay, live-cell imaging)
Secondary :
α-synuclein aggregation (pSer129 IF)
Mitochondrial function ( Seahorse XF)
Inflammatory markers (IL-6, TNF-α ELISA)
Tertiary :
Autophagy flux (mCherry-GFP-LC3)
DAMP release (HMGB1, ATP)
Phase 3: Biomarker Validation (12 months)
Objective Identify and validate blood/csf biomarkers that predict treatment response.
Biomarker Candidates
Plasma : p-MLKL, PARP activity, cathepsin B
CSF : AIF, HMGB1, neopterin
Correlations
Biomarker levels vs. clinical severity (MDS-UPDRS)
Biomarker changes vs. treatment response
Statistical Analysis
Power Calculation
Effect size: 30% improvement in survival (α=0.05, β=0.80)
Required n=12 per arm
Methods
Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction
Linear mixed models for time-course data
Principal component analysis for biomarker panel
Risks and Mitigation | Risk | Mitigation | |------|------------| | Off-target toxicity | Dose-response optimization, RNA-seq for pathway analysis | | Poor brain penetration | Use brain-penetrant derivatives in follow-up | | Pathway redundancy | Test combination therapy from Phase 2 | | Variable iPSC lines | Isogenic LRRK2 G2019S correction line as control |
Timeline Year 1: Phase 1 (in vitro validation) Year 2: Phase 2 (drug testing) Year 3: Phase 3 (biomarker validation)
Expected Outcomes
Mechanistic validation : Confirmation of all three pathways active in PD neurons
Optimal target identification : Determine dominant pathway per patient genotype
Combination efficacy : Establish synergistic vs. additive effects
Biomarker panel : Clinically actionable biomarker for patient stratification
References
[Bhatt et al., The necroptosis cell death pathway drives neurodegeneration (2024)](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40478-024-01745-6)
[Mandir et al., PARP mediates dopaminergic neurodegeneration (2009)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19554330/)
[Kandel et al., Autosis in Parkinson's disease (2021)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34044050/)
Show full description