Personalized neurology

The review presents the basic principles of personalized medicine in neurology, based on personified diagnostics, including approaches related to the analysis of the human genome, as well as the use of other omics technologies, such as neuroproteomics, neurometabolomics. The importance of taking into account the patient’s individual indicators (biomarkers) for the most accurate and timely diagnosis, monitoring the effectiveness and safety of therapy (theranostics) is discussed. Information on microRNAs with promising diagnostic potential is presented. The importance of pharmacogenomic studies for predicting the effectiveness of therapy is emphasized. The information on the study of the brain connectome and the mapping of the brain network is shown, which opens up new possibilities for understanding the physiological and pathological processes in the nervous system. The existing difficulties in the development of personalized medicine today are indicated and the undoubted benefits of individualized approaches in neurology are emphasized.

1. DeGoma EM, Rivera G, Lilly SM, et al. Personalized vascular medicine: individualizing drug therapy. Vascular Med. 2011;16(5):391–404.

2. Kitzman JO, Snyder MW, Ventura M, Lewis AP, Qiu R, Simmons LE, et al. Non-invasive whole genome sequencing of a human fetus. Sci Transl Med. 2012 Jun 6.4(137):137ra76.

3. Saunders CJ, Miller NA, Soden SE, Dinwiddie DL, Noll A, Alnadi NA, et al. Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing for Genetic Disease Diagnosis in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Sci Transl Med. 2012; 4(154):154ra135.

4. Topol EJ. Individualized medicine from pre-womb to tomb. Cell. 2014 Mar 27; 157(1):241–253.

5. Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 2010; 363(4): 301–304.

6. Jain KK. From molecular diagnostics to personalized medicine. Exp Rev Mol Diagn. 2002; 2(4):299–301.

7. Jain KK, Sharipov KO. Fundamentals of Personalized Medicine. Medicine of the XXI century: omix technologies, new knowledge, competencies and innovations. Moscow, Litterra Publishing House, 2020. P. 567. In Russian

8. Chen R, Mias GI, Li-Pook-Than J, et al. Personal omics profiling reveals dynamic molecular and medical phenotypes. Cell 2012; 148(6):1293–1307.

9. Moshkovsky SA. Omix biomarkers and early diagnosis. Biomedical Chemistry. 2017; 63 (5): 369–372. DOI: 10.18097/PBMC20176305369. In Russian

10. Hoggatt J. Personalized medicine trends in molecular diagnostics: exponential growth expected in the next ten years. Mol Diagn Ther 2011; 15(1):53–55.

11. Pene F, Courtine E, Cariou A, Mira JP. Toward theranostics. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:S50–S58.

12. Thomson A. Why do therapeutic drug monitoring. The Pharm. Journal. 2004; 273:153–S 155.

13. Pullarkat ST, Тoehlmacher J, Ghaderi V, et al. Thymidylate synthase gene response and toxicity of 5-FU chemotherapy. Pharmacogenomics J. 2001;1:65–70.

14. Zanger UM, Schwab M. Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism: regulation of gene expression, enzyme activities, and impact of genetic variation. Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Apr;138(1):103-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2012.12.007. Epub 2013 Jan 16. PMID: 23333322.

15. Scudellari M. Genomics contest underscores challenges of personalized medicine. Nat Med/ 2012;18(3):326.

16. Blackstock WP, Weir MP. Proteomics: quantitative and physical mapping of cellular proteins. Tr. Biotechnol. 1999;17:121–127.

17. Archakov AI. What’s behind genomics? Proteomics. Questions. med. chemistry. 2000; 46: 335– 343. In Russian

18. Gomazkov OA. Neuroproteomics, or how many proteins reflect brain function. 2020;140:347–358. In Russian

19. Kim MS, Pinto SM, Getnet D, et al. A draft map of the human proteome. Nature. 2014;509(7502):575–581.

20. Sakharov VN, Litvitskiy PF. Disorders of Protein Conformation as a Typical Component of Various Human Disease Pathogenesis. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2016;71(1):46–51. DOI: 10.15690/vramn635. In Russian

21. Maksimovich NE, Bon EI. Heat shock proteins. Properties. Role in adaptation. Methodological approaches to the definition. Biomedicine. 2020; 16 (2): 60–67. DOI: 10.33647/2074-5982-16-2-60-67. In Russian

22. Clague MJ, Urbé S. Ubiquitin: same molecule, different degradation pathways. Cell. 2010;143(5):682−685. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.11.012.

23. Pokrovskii VI, Kiselev OI, Cherkasskii BL. Prions and prion diseases. — M.: Publishing house of RAMS. 2004. P. 384. In Russian

24. Chaudhuri TK, Paul S. Protein misfolding diseases and chaperone based therapeutic approaches. FEBS J. 2006;273(7):1331–1349. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2006.05181.x.

25. Vig PJ, Subramony SH, McDaniel DO. Calcium homeostasis and spinocerebellar ataxia-1 (SCA-1). Brain Res Bull. 2001 Oct-Nov 1;56(3-4):221-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0361-9230(01)00595-0. PMID: 11719254.

26. Zavalishin I.A. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2009. P. 272. In Russian

27. Cacabelos R. Pharmacogenomics in Alzheimer’s disease. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2002;2:59–84.

28. Kroh EM, Parkin RK, Mitchell PS, Tewari M. Analysis of circulating microRNA biomarkers in plasma and serum using quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR). Methods. 2010; 50(4):298–301. DOI:10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.01.032.

29. Mitchell PS, Parkin RK, Kroh EM, Fritz BR, Wyman SK, Pogosova-Agadjanyan EL, et al. Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers for cancer detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(30):10513– 10518. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0804549105.

30. Topuzova MP, Alekseeva TM, Panina EB, Vavilova ТV. MicroRNA as a diagnostic biomarker in stroke. Arterial Hypertension. 2018;24(5):521–530. DOI:10.18705/1607-419X-2018-24-5-521-530. In Russian

31. Zhang W, Dolan ME. The emerging role of microRNAs in drug responses. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2010 Dec;12(6):695–702. PMID: 21154161; PMCID: PMC3233195.

32. Zhang W, Huang RS, Dolan ME. Integrating epigenomics into pharmacogenomic studies. Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2008; 2008(1):7–14. [PubMed: 20622972].

33. Fechner P, Bleher O, Ewald M, Freudenberger K, Furin D, Hilbig IU, et al. Size does matter! Label-free detection of small molecule-protein interaction. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2014; 406: 4033–51.

34. Kolotyeva NA, Gylmiyarova FN. The role of small molecules in metabolism regulation (review). Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics. 2019; 64 (12): 716–722. DOI: 10.18821/0869-2084-2019-64-12-716-722. In Russian

35. Ibanez C, Cifuentes A, Simo C. Recent advances and applications of metabolomics to investigate neurodegenerative diseases. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 2015;122:95–132.

36. Kukes VG. Drug metabolism: clinical and pharmacological aspects. 2004; 18–27: 40–47. In Russian

37. Chaukina SV. Clinical and pharmacological aspects of drug metabolism under the influence of cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme CYP2D6 // Difficult patient. 2007. No. 14. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kliniko-farmakologicheskie-aspekty-metabolizmalekarstvennyh-sredstv-pod-deystviem-izofermentatsitohroma-r-450-cyp2d6 (date accessed: 11.11.2021). In Russian

38. Fox MD. Mapping Symptoms to Brain Networks with the Human Connectome. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 6;379(23):2237–2245. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1706158. PMID: 30575457.

39. Baliki MN., Mansour AR, Baria AT, Apkarian AV. Functional reorganization of the default mode network across chronic pain conditions. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e106133. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106133.

40. Thorp SL, Suchy T, Vadivelu N, Helander EM, Urman RD, Kaye AD. Functional Connectivity Alterations: Novel Therapy and Future Implications in Chronic Pain Management. Pain Physician. 2018;21(3):207–214.

41. Lepekhina AS, Pospelova ML, Efimtsev AYu, et al. Clinical and neuroimaging comparison of the dynamics of the functional connectivity of the brain in patients with chronic tension headache. Modern problems of science and education. 2021; 3. URL: http://www.scienceeducation.ru/article/view?id=30865 (date of access: 11.11.2021). In Russian