Monthly Archives: July 2008

Attacking Alzheimer’s disease from every angle

The characteristic feature of Alzheimers’s disease is the presence in the brain of two different kinds of abnormal protein structures, the amyloid plaques that are formed from the amyloid beta peptide along the outside of the nerve cells, and the neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) that are formed by the tau protein inside the nerve cells. As the disease progresses the NFTs become progressively more widespread, leading to nerve cell death, loss of cognitive function and ultimately severe dementia. The Alzheimers Association provides an excellent “brain tour” introduction to the biology of the disease http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_4719.asp.  Unfortunately there are at present few effective treatments available, and while drugs such as Aricept (donepezil) can improve the quality of life of sufferers they appear to have little impact on overall disease progression.  New drugs that can slow down, halt or even reverse disease progression are urgently needed, so the news this week that three drugs which work in different ways have performed well in early clinical trials is very welcome.

The first trial was a Phase II clinical trial of the drug PBT2 in 78 patients suffering from mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and targeted the amyloid plaques that form early in the course of the disease. The trial results showed that those taking PBT2 showed improvements in cognitive function over the duration of the trial when compared to both their own performance at the outset of the trial and that of those taking a placebo. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/29/alzheimers.disease.patients.show.improvement.trial.new.drug
PBT2 acts by moving zinc and copper ions from outside to inside the nerve cells, and since the amyloid plaques form outside the nerve cells and require zinc and copper ions to form this inhibits the development of the plaques.  The development of PBT2 was greatly assisted by the availability of transgenic mice which have mutations in the gene that encodes the A-beta peptide precursor and develop many of the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (1). Using these mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease Dr. Ashley Bush and colleagues at the University of Melbourne and Prana Biotechnology Ltd were able to show that PBT2 was more effective at blocking amyloid plaque formation and cognitive decline than earlier drugs that they had been studying, and these promising results lead to the trial whose results were announced this week.

The second trial targeted the other type of protein aggregate associated with Alzheimer’s disease, the neurofibrillary tangle, and again in a Phase II trial Alzheimer’s disease patients taking drug Rember showed dramatic improvement over those taking a placebo pill http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/07/30/protein-study.html. Rember is a curious drug, it’s actually a chemical called Methylthioninium chloride that has been used medically in the past for a range of conditions, and 20 years ago Professor Claude Wischnik accidently discovered that it could disentangle the bundles of tau proteins in NFTs in vitro. A team of scientists at TauRX Therapeutics Ltd lead by Professor Wischik developed mouse models of Alzheimers to evaluate whether this in vitro observation could translate into a drug that could stop the progression of Alzheimer’s disease  http://www.taurx.com/science_aggregation_hypothesis.aspx

These two trials go some way to finally resolving a debate that has divided the Alzheimer’s disease for decades, namely whether amyloid plaques or NFTs are primarily responsible for causing nerve cell death in Alzheimer’s disease.  Since the mid 1990′s a series of transgenic mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease have been developed, and have taught researchers a lot about how the disease progresses. In particular the transgenic mouse models have demonstrated that while amyloid plaque formation can trigger and accelerate the development of Alzheimer’s disease the formation of NFTs is required for nerve cell death to occur and the full clinical symptoms to be displayed (2).  As a consequence over the past decade many researchers have begun to study treatments that target NFT formation as well as those that target amyloid plaques.  It seems that both sides of the debate were at least half right!

The final trial to report is once again a phase II trail, this time of an anti-inflammatory drug that was approved in Russia a couple of decades ago but has since been superceeded by newer drugs.  In a phase II trial of 183 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease  Dimebon was found to improve cognitive ability wwithout causing any serious side effects http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/17/early.study.reveals.promising.alzheimers.disease.treatment.
The team undertaking this work do not yet know how Dimebon combats Alzheimer’s disease, but suspect that it may act by preserving the function of energy producing subcellular organelles called mitochondria and thereby preventing nerve cell death.  The decision to undertake clinical trials of Dimebon in Alzheimer’s disease was prompted  by a study published in 2000 showing that it had neuroprotective properties in a rat model of Alzheimer’s disease  (3).

These three clinical trials all illustrate how important animal research is to the development of treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, by contributing to our understanding of how the disease develops and by providing us with disease models that we can use to evaluate potential treatments.  It’s worth remembering though that these are Phase II trials, and as Tom mentioned in his last post adverse effects are often not identified until the drugs are tested on thousands of patients in Phase III trials. It’s possible, even probable, that not all these drugs will be approved by the FDA and go into clinical use, and if they do it will be in four or five years time. This caveat shouldn’t however diminish our optimism at the end of what has been a very exciting week for Alzheimer’s disease research, for the first time we have clinical trial evidence that Alzheimer’s can be stopped in its tracks.

Cheers
Paul
1) Adlard P.A. et al. “Rapid restoration of cognition in Alzheimer’s transgenic mice with 8-hydroxy quinoline analogs is associated with decreased interstitial Abeta” Neuron. Volume 59(1), Pages 43-55 (2008).

2) McGowan E. et al. “A decade of modeling Alzheimer’s disease in transgenic mice.” Trends Genet. Volume 22(5), pages 281-289 (2006).

3) Lermontova N.N. et al. “Dimebon improves learning in animals with experimental Alzheimer’s disease.” Bull Exp Biol Med. Volume 129(6), Pages 544-546 (2000).

92% of statistics are taken out of context…

I thought I’d dedicate an entire post to a certain statistic which has been repeatedly misused and misunderstood by animal rights groups.

92% of drugs that test successfully in animals fail during human trials

You will find animal rights organizations, such as PETA and PCRM, all using this statistic. Often claiming that this shows that “animal research doesn’t work”.

The statistic is from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), used to illustrate inefficiencies in drug development. However the actual statistic is much broader, it should be:

92% of drugs fail during human trials

Now it is true that they have passed animal testing to get to human (clinical) trials, but it also means that they have passed non-animal pre-clinical tests, such as in vitro. Consider:

92% of drugs that have successfully passed in vitro tests, fail during human trials

Misleading? Yes. So the next obvious question:

Why do drugs fail at the clinical stage?

Drugs fail clinical trials for two reasons – they don’t work well (lacking efficacy) or they are potentially dangerous. Drugs may fail at different stages of clinical trials – so sometimes a relatively rare, but potentially dangerous side effect turns up late into human trials when many thousands of humans are being used (late in clinical stages many more humans than other animals may have tested the drug – as more people/animals are tested, more side effects are discovered); equally some drugs may simply be ineffective in humans, or ineffective in enough humans (no one wants to release a drug that only works in, say, 30% of people – unless that 30% is a particular and selectable demographic e.g. children), this is bound to be the case since animals are not perfect models for humans, just as humans are not perfect models for other humans (thus why some people get adverse drug reactions and not others).

According to the FDA report, which suggests various improvements to the drug development process, the top area where improvements could be made is to improve the animal models (not remove, but use and improve – they also accept the good track record of animals for finding dangerous chemicals in toxicology tests), with the increase in genetically modified animals allowing us to create better animal models, hopefully we will see that 92% statistic drop.

It is worth highlighting that the FDA says many drugs are failing clinical trials at late stages, meaning that problems with drugs are not becoming clear until they are tested in many people – so it is a mystery as to why the animal rights groups try and put the blame solely on the shoulders of animal research.

What about the benefits of animal safety tests?

Well why DO we use animal safety tests? The 92% statistic ignores all the benefits of safety tests, so:
You have 1000 drugs entering animal safety tests
900 of them fail, of which, say, 20 might actually be safe in humans (false positive).
Of the remaining 100, 92 fail human tests

[The above stats are made up for illustration purposes. Approx 90% of drugs fail at the animal testing stage, and false positives aren't (cannot legally or safely be) measured]

Therefore:

90.5% of dangerous drugs have been kept out of clinical trials thanks to animal safety tests**

(However 92% of drugs have still failed clinical trials)

**[[Dangerous Drugs removed by animal safety tests]] / [[Total number of dangerous drugs]] = [[880/972]]

We can see that the lower statistic makes no mention of the benefits of animal safety tests made clear by the top statistic.

It is worth noting that around 90% of drugs are removed at every stage of safety tests, i.e. 90% are removed at non-animal pre-clinical safety tests, 90% at animal stages, and 90% during human clinical trials.

Check back on the website for more AR debunking!

Cheers

Tom

New DVD shows how biomedical research can save your pet!

Americans for Medical Progress, whom Speaking of Research works side by side with, have just released a fantastic new DVD which looks at the impact of animal research on veterinary medicine.

The DVD follows four veterinarians; Marilyn Brown, Arnold Goldman, Lisa Portnoy and John Young, who lent their thoughts, hearts and voices in order to explore the humane nature and value of animal-based research to animal and human medicine. The DVD also follows the dramatic stories of some animals whose lives have been saved by treatments developed through biomedical research.

A clip from the DVD can be seen below:

Another story on the DVD is that of Duke, the research beagle who contributed to the development of the HPV (Human Papillomavirus) Vaccine through his part in trials for the COPV (Canine Oral Papillomavirus) Vaccine. The HPV vaccine was given FDA approval last year and will soon be available to help many people around the world. Learn more about veterinary medicine.

The DVD is free of charge so order one now.

Tom

Stem cell hope for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an inherited disease that affects about one in every 4,000 males born in the USA. It is caused by mutations in the DMD gene that lead to the protein dystrophin being either absent or faulty, which leads to muscle cell death, progressive muscle wasting and early death, with few patients surviving beyond their 40th birthday.

In recent years scientists have been investigating the possibility of transplanting healthy stem cells into the muscle of patients in order to replace the lost muscle cells and halt the progression of the disease, but it has proved difficult to identify muscle precursor cells that can both make new muscle cells and persist as a pool of precursor cells in the patient, the latter is an important consideration if repeated transplants are to be avoided since muscle cells wear out and need to be replaced.  A paper published in this weeks issue of the scientific journal Cell by scientists at Harvard University is an important step towards developing a means to screen for the right cells and use them to treat DMD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7500523.stm

In their work (1) Dr. Amy Wagers and her coworkers concentrated on a type of cell known as satellite cells that are closely associated with muscle fibers in mice and humans; by studying the proteins found on the surface of these cells they were able to identify a sub-population they termed skeletal-muscle precursor cells (SMPs)  in mice that could produce muscle cells while maintaining a reserve of precursor cells for future rounds of muscle cell production.  They next needed to evaluate these cells for their ability to do this when transplanted into an animal whose muscles were being damaged due to faulty dystrophin, in order to determine whether their ideas were correct.
They chose to use the mdx mouse model, a mouse which has a defect in the dystrophin gene and displays many of the biochemical and physiological characteristics of DMD. The mdx mouse displays less severe symptoms than humans with DMD, but like humans is characterized by progressive muscle wasting and early death and has been crucial to the development of many of the new therapies for DMD, including gene therapy and novel drugs, that are currently entering clinical trials. Dr. Wager’s work found that engraftment of transplanted SMPs into the muscles of  mdx animals lead to the production of new muscle cells to replace lost to DMD, and that the transplants also showed therapeutic value by improving muscle histology and rescuing physiological muscle function i.e. the muscles got stronger.  Analysis of the muscles of mice which received transplanted cells also showed that the second requirement that the transplanted cells should give rise to a pool of cells capable of acting as a source of muscle cells in future was also fulfilled.

This is very promising work, and marks an important milestone in the development of stem cell therapy for DMD.  Before human trials can begin however more work will need to be done to develop methods of isolating and preparing human SMPs for use in clinical trials, and there remains the challenge of how to transplant the cells into all the muscles in the body where they are required.

Cheers

Paul Browne

Related posts:

Progress towards a cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Promising clinical trial result for exon skipping in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

1) Cerletti M. et al. “Highly Efficient, Functional Engraftment of Skeletal Muscle Stem Cells in Dystrophic Muscles” Cell Vol 134, Pages 37-47 ( 2008)

Dr. Michael DeBakey

We are sorry to learn of the death of Dr. Michael DeBakey. DeBakey was a world-renowned heard surgeon who developed the roller pump, an essential component of the life-saving heart lung machine (used during Cardiopulmonary Bypass) which propels the blood through the tubing. His pioneering work in the field of cardiology later led him to perform the first coronary artery heart bypass, and more recently he has been a key figure in the development of ventricular assist devices that keep patients alive while they wait for a suitable transplant organ to become available.

He has won the two highest civillian honors in the United States, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1987, and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007, as well as countless other awards in science. These awards recognized not only his great contributions to science and surgery but also his dedication to improving health policy and practice, from the introduction of M.A.S.H units in the US military, to Medicare for the elderly, to the internationally renowned National Library of Medicine.

We are especially grateful for DeBakey’s determination to improve public understanding of the crucial role of animals in medical research, one that he was particularly familiar with from his own research.  The courage, tenacity and charm he displayed as chairman of the Foundation for Biomedical Research will long continue to serve as an example to advocates of humane and responsible animal research.

Tom

Speaking of Research in Science Magazine

Speaking of Research is going up in the world, having now made its way into the (joint) biggest Science Journal of them all (alongside Nature) – Science Magazine. You can download that SR article here. The article, in the Newsmakers section, puts Holder as this month’s “mover” – reporting on his efforts to bring the Pro-Test style movement to the United States.

At 22, Tom Holder is already a veteran of a U.K. student-led campaign to counter demonstrations and vandalism by animal-rights activists. Now he’s hoping to apply lessons learned from those battles to help scientists speak out about the benefits of animal research in the United States where attacks by animal-rights extremists have been on the rise.

Holder has been working hard with Americans for Medical Progress, who helped bring Tom to the US, to travel to Universities and other institutions around the country. If you would like to hear Speaking of Research at your institution go to our Request a Speaker page.

In other news, the Veterinary Benefits page (formerly Veterinary Treatments) has been updated. A surge of visits to the page caused us to give the page a makeover, and we thank the contribution of Dr. Arnold Goldman, DVM, Director of Canton Animal Hospital, for his help in improving the information available. So check that out and discover how animals used in research benefit not just people, but other animals as well.

Regards

Paul Browne

Peta and HSUS fight for the legacy of the ‘Queen of Mean’

Peta (People for the Ethical Treatmet of Animals) and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) are both trying to lay claim to the estate of the late Leona Helmsley, once dubbed the Queen of Mean. Helmsley’s fortune is estimated at $5-8 billion (around 3 times the combined incomes of everyone living in Zimbabwe).  Helmsley ammassed her fortune through shrwed real estate investing and a chain of hotels (apparently taking the Monopoly rulebook as a life guide).  She earned her reputation as a tyrannical employer, once quotes as saying “Only the little people pay taxes.” Upon her death she left $12 million to her dog, Trouble, more than to any of her four grandchildren (two were left out the will completely). She put the lion’s share of her fortune in a trust fund for the care and welfare of dogs – this could provide around $400 million per year for various efforts to improve animal welfare.

So should the money go to Peta? An organisation which killed more than 90% of the adoptable animals that entered its shelters in Virginia? Or perhaps to HSUS, which spent less than 8% (approx $6.5million) of its $91 million donations (2006 Budget on website), to support animal shelters, choosing rather to spend the money fighting for animal rights on the hill.

Hopefully Leona Helmsley’s fortune will instead be divided up between much smaller animal shelters which directly contribute to animal welfare. HSUS have long played the trick of gaining donations by associating their effots with their local animal shelters – in truth HSUS absorb many of the resources that would do much to improve animal welfare in individual animal shelters, and use it to fight for animal rights on the hill.

Regards

Tom

Peta – Out with the new, In with the old!

It seems Peta is running out of news lately – so its front page has decided to bring back the story of mistreatment of animals at Oregon National Primate Research Center – a story which turned out to be completely false when the USDA investigated. Want proof? Here’s the USDA report giving ONPRC a clean bill of health.

It seems that Peta forgot to check the newspapers after their infiltration because there were plenty of stories regarding the perfectly acceptable conditions inside ONPRC. So for the benefit of Peta members, here’s some of the news coverage.

Peta’s video accused ONPRC of mistreatment – let’s look at some of their claims:

Claim 1. Employers spray high power hoses to clean cages with monkeys inside – soaking the monkeys and upsetting them.

Truth: The Peta video is filmed so that most of the cage is not visible. You cannot see that the technician is actually cleaning the pans beneath the cages while the monkey is safely perched on a shelf away from the water. This is a regular occurrence and does not distress the monkeys. Here is actual footage showing what happens during pan cleaning (rather than Peta’s video which shows how the ceiling appears during pan cleaning).

Peta’s claim that the noise of the water hitting the cages causes the monkeys distress is unfounded when one considers that the monkeys are not sitting right next to the point of impact, but a few feet above on a shelf.

Claim 2. Technicians chase monkeys around their cages in order to move them. This causes the monkeys great distress.

Truth: Unfortunately if you have a large cage then it will is more difficult to capture the monkeys (but most would agree that the other benefits of a large cage, such as the one seen below, outweigh this minor inconvenience). The large cages allow monkeys to move around and play freely – improving animal welfare and adhering to the principle of Refinement within the 3Rs.

In order to reduce the need to “capture” monkeys, positive reinforcement is used to train monkeys to help researchers. Below we can see a monkey being trained to press a button, and later the monkey will be trained to offer up an arm of leg for blood samples.

Claim 3. Mistreatment has resulted in a rectal prolapses in monkeys within the facility

Truth: Rectal Prolapses are a minor problem for monkeys in captivity, similar to hair loss. These problems come and go without causing the monkey much discomfort (if a monkey does appear to be in pain then a veterinarian will attend to them promptly).

Claim 4. The conditions cause monkeys to go mad – animals can be seen in distress, whirling or pacing inside their cages.

Truth: This is perhaps one of the most insidious claims. Peta try to insinuate that the monkeys seen are acting as they always do – whereas it appears that they are acting alarmed by a presence outside their cage (perhaps one with a camera…) This is most certainly not ordinary behavior, and there is a strong chance that the animals filmed are stress-sensitive monkeys used for certain types of experiments at ONPRC. However the fact remains that the footage was almost certainly taken as soon as the intruder entered the room and before the animals had time to acclimatize themselves to the new presence. See the video below for a comparison of Peta’s footage to film taken by members of ONPRC.

[Please favourite, rate and comment favourably on Youtube to ensure more people see this]

CORRECTION:
The following video was entirely shot by Oregon Primate Center (not PETA) to illustrate how certain stress-sensitive monkeys (used for research into behavior) will act abnormally when in the presence of something new (a camera – that looks like a big eye), but will settle down when they realize it is not a threat. Check the previous video to see how a PETA infiltrator misused this fact.

We look forward to next week when Peta will be reporting on cruelty to animals by the Ancient Egyptians.

Cheers

Tom