Age‐related central neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, are a rising public health concern and have been plagued by repeated drug development failures. The complex nature and poor mechanistic understanding of the etiology of neurodegenerative diseases has hindered the discovery and development of effective disease‐modifying therapeutics. Quantitative systems pharmacology models of neurodegeneration diseases may be useful tools to enhance the understanding of pharmacological intervention strategies and to reduce drug attrition rates. Due to the similarities in pathophysiological mechanisms across neurodegenerative diseases, especially at the cellular and molecular levels, we envision the possibility of structural components that are conserved across models of neurodegenerative diseases. Conserved structural submodels can be viewed as building blocks that are pieced together alongside unique disease components to construct quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models of neurodegenerative diseases. Model parameterization would likely be different between the different types of neurodegenerative diseases as well as individual patients. Formulating our mechanistic understanding of neurodegenerative pathophysiology as a mathematical model could aid in the identification and prioritization of drug targets and combinatorial treatment strategies, evaluate the role of patient characteristics on disease progression and therapeutic response, and serve as a central repository of knowledge. Here, we provide a background on neurodegenerative diseases, highlight hallmarks of neurodegeneration, and summarize previous QSP models of neurodegenerative diseases.

The effect of levodopa in alleviating the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease is altered in a highly nonlinear manner as the disease progresses. This can be attributed to different compensation mechanisms taking place in the basal ganglia where the dopaminergic neurons are progressively lost. This alteration in the effect of levodopa complicates the optimization of a drug regimen. The present work aims at investigating the nonlinear dynamics of Parkinson’s disease and its therapy through mechanistic mathematical modeling. Using a holistic approach, a pharmacokinetic model of levodopa was combined to a dopamine dynamics and a neurocomputational model of basal ganglia. The influence of neuronal death on these different mechanisms was also integrated. Using this model, we were able to investigate the nonlinear relationships between the levodopa plasma concentration, the dopamine brain concentration, and a response to a motor task. Variations in dopamine concentrations in the brain for different levodopa doses were also studied. Finally, we investigated the narrowing of a levodopa therapeutic index with the progression of the disease as a result of these nonlinearities. In conclusion, various consequences of nonlinear dynamics in Parkinson’s disease treatment were studied by developing an integrative model. This model paves the way toward individualization of a dosing regimen. Using sensor based information, the parameters of the model could be fitted to individual data to propose optimal individual regimens.

No abstract

Cognitive flexibility is essential to modify our behavior in a non-stationary environment and is often explored by reversal learning tasks. The basal ganglia (BG) dopaminergic system, under a top-down control of the pre-frontal cortex, is known to be involved in flexible action selection through reinforcement learning. However, how adaptive dopamine changes regulate this process and learning mechanisms for training the striatal synapses remain open questions. The current study uses a neurocomputational model of the BG, based on dopamine-dependent direct (Go) and indirect (NoGo) pathways, to investigate reinforcement learning in a probabilistic environment through a task that associates different stimuli to different actions. Here, we investigated: the efficacy of several versions of the Hebb rule, based on covariance between pre- and post-synaptic neurons, as well as the required control in phasic dopamine changes crucial to achieving a proper reversal learning. Furthermore, an original mechanism for modulating the phasic dopamine changes is proposed, assuming that the expected reward probability is coded by the activity of the winner Go neuron before a reward/punishment takes place. Simulations show that this original formulation for an automatic phasic dopamine control allows the achievement of a good flexible reversal even in difficult conditions. The current outcomes may contribute to understanding the mechanisms for active control of dopamine changes during flexible behavior. In perspective, it may be applied in neuropsychiatric or neurological disorders, such as Parkinson’s or schizophrenia, in which reinforcement learning is impaired.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder in children. Although the involvement of dopamine in this disorder seems to be established, the nature of dopaminergic dysfunction remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to test whether the key response characteristics of ADHD could be simulated by a mechanistic model that combines a decrease in tonic dopaminergic activity with an increase in phasic responses in cortical-striatal loops during learning reinforcement. To this end, we combined a dynamic model of dopamine with a neurocomputational model of the basal ganglia with multiple action channels. We also included a dynamic model of tonic and phasic dopamine release and control, and a learning procedure driven by tonic and phasic dopamine levels. In the model, the dopamine imbalance is the result of impaired presynaptic regulation of dopamine at the terminal level. Using this model, virtual individuals from a dopamine imbalance group and a control group were trained to associate four stimuli with four actions with fully informative reinforcement feedback. In a second phase, they were tested without feedback. Subjects in the dopamine imbalance group showed poorer performance with more variable reaction times due to the presence of fast and very slow responses, difficulty in choosing between stimuli even when they were of high intensity, and greater sensitivity to noise. Learning history was also significantly more variable in the dopamine imbalance group, explaining 75% of the variability in reaction time using quadratic regression. The response profile of the virtual subjects varied as a function of the learning history variability index to produce increasingly severe impairment, beginning with an increase in response variability alone, then accumulating a decrease in performance and finally a learning deficit. Although ADHD is certainly a heterogeneous disorder, these results suggest that typical features of ADHD can be explained by a phasic/tonic imbalance in dopaminergic activity alone.