Yes, I suspect could be the one. That said, I don’t think that a brain mTOR modulator by itself will resolve PD. It might be helpful in the early stage before much destruction of substantia nigra cells has taken place.

1 Like

HER-096 is one of the more interesting Parkinson’s disease drug candidates currently in development because it is trying to do something very different from standard dopamine replacement therapies.

What is HER-096?

HER-096 is a small peptide-like molecule (a peptidomimetic) developed by Herantis Pharma. It was designed from a naturally occurring neuroprotective protein called Cerebral Dopamine Neurotrophic Factor (CDNF). CDNF has shown strong neuroprotective effects in animal models of neurodegeneration, but the full protein is difficult to deliver as a practical drug. HER-096 is essentially a smaller, more drug-like version designed to retain CDNF’s beneficial properties while being easier to administer.

Unlike levodopa, which mainly treats symptoms, HER-096 is being developed as a disease-modifying therapy, meaning the goal is to slow or halt degeneration of dopamine neurons themselves.

Why is it unusual?

Most neurotrophic factors have a major problem:

They do not cross the blood-brain barrier.

They often require direct brain infusion.

Clinical development becomes expensive and invasive.

HER-096 was specifically engineered to:

Survive degradation in the bloodstream.

Cross the blood-brain barrier.

Reach the cerebrospinal fluid after a simple subcutaneous injection.

Remain in the brain longer than in plasma.

That combination is relatively rare and is a major reason the compound has attracted attention.

Mechanism of action

Current evidence suggests HER-096 acts through several pathways simultaneously:

  1. Reduces ER stress

A major feature of many neurodegenerative diseases is accumulation of misfolded proteins that overwhelm the endoplasmic reticulum (ER).

HER-096 appears to regulate the unfolded protein response (UPR), helping cells cope with protein-folding stress.

  1. Protects dopamine neurons

In Parkinson’s disease, neurons in the substantia nigra progressively die.

HER-096 promoted survival of dopaminergic neurons in laboratory and animal studies.

  1. Reduces alpha-synuclein pathology

Alpha-synuclein aggregation is one of the hallmark pathological features of Parkinson’s disease.

Researchers reported reductions in alpha-synuclein aggregates after HER-096 treatment.

  1. Reduces neuroinflammation

Animal studies showed reductions in markers of neuroinflammation in the substantia nigra.

Animal study results

In aged mouse models of synucleinopathy:

Dopamine neuron loss was reduced.

Alpha-synuclein aggregates were reduced.

Neuroinflammation decreased.

UPR signaling was normalized.

Brain exposure was achieved after subcutaneous dosing.

These findings are encouraging because they hit multiple aspects of Parkinson’s pathology rather than just dopamine production.

Human clinical trials

Phase 1

Healthy volunteer studies demonstrated:

Acceptable safety.

Acceptable tolerability.

Predictable pharmacokinetics.

Subcutaneous administration feasibility.

Phase 1b Parkinson’s trial

The most recent data showed:

Both 200 mg and 300 mg doses were generally safe and well tolerated.

Blood-brain barrier penetration was confirmed in Parkinson’s patients.

Pharmacokinetics matched expectations from earlier studies.

300 mg twice-weekly dosing was selected as suitable for Phase 2.

This is an important milestone because many neuroprotective compounds fail simply because they cannot get into the brain in meaningful amounts.

How advanced is it?

As of the latest public updates:

Phase 1 studies have been completed.

Phase 1b in Parkinson’s patients met its primary and secondary endpoints.

The program is preparing for Phase 2 efficacy testing.

The critical question now is whether the biological effects seen in animals translate into measurable slowing of disease progression in humans.

Why longevity and neurodegeneration researchers might find it interesting

Looking at it through the lens of aging biology rather than just Parkinson’s:

HER-096 appears to influence several mechanisms that show up repeatedly in aging tissues:

Proteostasis dysfunction

ER stress

Protein aggregation

Chronic inflammation

Neuronal survival signaling

Those are not Parkinson-specific phenomena. They are implicated in multiple age-related neurodegenerative diseases.

That does not mean HER-096 is an anti-aging drug, but it is one of the few clinical candidates attempting to directly improve cellular stress-response systems rather than merely replace neurotransmitters.

Biggest reasons for optimism

Crosses the blood-brain barrier.

Simple subcutaneous injection.

Multi-mechanistic action.

Strong preclinical package.

Human BBB penetration already demonstrated.

Good safety profile so far.

Biggest reasons for caution

Nearly every Parkinson’s disease-modifying therapy has looked good in animals.

Parkinson’s drug development has a long history of Phase 2 and Phase 3 failures.

We still do not know whether HER-096 produces meaningful clinical slowing of disease progression.

Current evidence supports biological activity, not efficacy.

From a scientific perspective, the most impressive aspect of HER-096 is not the Parkinson’s indication itself. It is the fact that researchers appear to have created a brain-penetrant CDNF mimetic that can be given by simple injection while retaining neuroprotective activity. If the Phase 2 results are positive, that platform could become relevant far beyond Parkinson’s disease.

3 Likes

Is Parkinson’s really a disease? Reframing it as a phenotype of aging 2026

PD may be one phenotypic expression of brain aging rather than a discrete disease entity.
Analysis of clinical, pathological, cellular, and genetic evidence shows overlap between PD etiopathogenesis and normal aging.
Conceptualizing PD within an aging continuum challenges current diagnostic nosology and classification systems.
An aging-phenotype approach may improve biomarker development, clinical trial design, and patient communication.

Poke @John_Hemming @CronosTempi

1 Like

Sorry I have no patience with nonsense like this. It strikes me as meaningless word games with no practical utility or explanatory power. No, PD is not a kinship facet of aging. Aging does not involve rapid destruction of substantia nigra cells through such mechanisms. LB dementia is in no part of normal aging. Symptomatically there is no such effect in normal aging on muscle control, tremors and so on. I am not going to spend time picking apart this nonsensical essay as I don’t think there is anything a sportsman or spectator can learn from shooting fish in a barrel.

And speaking of word games. PD as an aging phenotype? I can do better than that. PD as an Alpha Centauri star:

PD occurs in humans ----> humans are composed of atoms ----> Alpha Centauri stars are composed of atoms ----> PD is a phenotype of an Alpha Centauri star. Q.E.D.

There’s about as much value in this analysis. F*** that noise.

Let us concentrate our time and attention on translatable approaches to finding a cure for PD which is a terrible disease. Khashayar Dashtipour is just wasting our time with vanity publications - and I for one don’t have much time left. YMMV.

1 Like

I don’t think it’s stupid because I’m not sure PD is a disease as opposed to a syndrome or a collection of diseases with similar phenotypes.

Yes, PD is extremely heterogenous. That still doesn’t mean it’s a “phenotypic manifestation of brain aging”. But then again, if we posit that PD was absent or rare before the 1800’s then I am amazed to learn that there was no brain aging of that phenotype before 1800. Wonders never cease. And if brain aging was that radically different before 1800, then I see no logical reason - using the same criteria - why it wouldn’t change again in 2100 - hey, no more PD! Sorry, it’s nonsense word games. Look, we should concentrate on concrete pathologies manifest in various forms of PD. I see zero value in trying to color this under “brain aging phenotype”. YMMV.

1 Like

As you know I think Parkinsons and MND/ALS are actually accelerated aging of neurons compared to normal. Normally neurons and the CNS in general do not age as fast as other tissues. The heart and the liver also seem to have some protection.

However, when I wanted to put a poster to the Parkinsons research conference about this it was rejected on the abstract.

Why those neurons, because they have a large energy demand from OxPhos.

1 Like

The Gompertz-Makeham formula for mortality has the Makeham element which is external mortality. What has happened is a reduction in external mortality and child mortality.

We don’t really know what has happened in terms of PD prior to the 1800s.

However, I asked Gemini and I think you cannot post that PD did not exist before the 1800s.

While British physician James Parkinson published his definitive clinical description An Essay on the Shaking Palsy in 1817, the symptoms of what we now call Parkinson’s disease (PD) were recorded for thousands of years prior. Because early medicine classified disorders by individual symptoms rather than complex neurological syndromes, these historic accounts appear as fragments across ancient, medieval, and Enlightenment texts.

Historical reports of these symptoms before 1800 span several distinct eras:

Ancient and Classical Antiquity

  • Ancient India (c. 1000 BCE): The Ayurvedic medical treatise describes a condition called Kampavata (where Kampa means tremor and Vata refers to the internal bodily air/energy controlling movement). The texts explicitly document a disease causing tremors, lack of movement, drooling, and a distinct posture. Remarkably, it was treated with the seeds of Mucuna pruriens, a tropical legume naturally rich in levodopa—the same active chemical used in modern Parkinson’s medication.
  • Ancient Egypt (c. 12th Century BCE): A papyrus from the 19th Dynasty references a prominent non-motor symptom of advanced age and neurological decline, explicitly describing a king “drooling with age.”
  • Galen of Pergamon (129–c. 216 CE): The famous Roman physician provided the most sophisticated classical analysis of the disease. He explicitly distinguished between different types of tremors, specifically describing tremor coactus—a tremor that occurs only when the limbs are at rest—as well as postural changes and muscle paralysis.

The Renaissance and Early Modern Era

Following Galen, unambiguous descriptions of Parkinsonian symptoms faded from medical literature for centuries, though they occasionally surfaced in the observations of prominent artists, thinkers, and playwrights.

  • Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519): In his private notebooks, Leonardo recorded a highly accurate observation of what we now know as involuntary rest tremors and loss of motor control, writing about “paralytics… who move their trembling limbs such as the head or the hands without permission of the soul; which soul with all its power cannot prevent these limbs from trembling.”
  • William Shakespeare (1564–1616): While not a medical text, characters in Shakespeare’s plays frequently describe the physical realities of aging and infirmity. For example, in Henry VI, Part 2, the character Dick the Butcher describes the historical figure Say as having “a shaking palsy” that makes his head wag, capturing the prominent public visibility of the condition.
  • Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665): The French classical painter suffered from a progressive, severe tremor in his later decades. Modern digital analyses of his brushstrokes from the 1620s through the 1660s show a calculated, gradual decrease in movement velocity and precision, matching the progressive nature of the disease.

The 17th and 18th Century Enlightenment

In the generations leading up to James Parkinson’s landmark essay, European physicians began identifying and naming specific motor characteristics of the condition with clinical precision.

  • Franciscus Sylvius (1614–1672): This Dutch physician expanded on Galen’s work by formally distinguishing between “action tremors” (tremors that happen during voluntary movement) and “rest tremors” (tremors that happen when the body is supported and relaxed). Rest tremor remains a primary cardinal sign used in modern diagnoses.
  • Ferenc Pápai Páriz (1649–1716): A Hungarian physician whose 1690 medical handbook Pax Corporis is widely considered by modern historians to be the first European document to successfully compile all four cardinal motor signs of Parkinson’s—tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia (slowness of movement), and postural instability—into a single description.
  • Johannes Baptiste Sagar & Hieronymus David Gaubius (18th Century): Both physicians independent of one another documented a peculiar gait abnormality they called scerotyrbe festinans. They noted that when some patients attempted to walk at a normal pace, an involuntary shift in their center of gravity forced them to rapidly accelerate into a running pace to keep from falling forward. This is known today as a “festinant gait.”
  • John Hunter (1728–1793): The renowned Scottish surgeon delivered a lecture in 1776 detailing a patient, Lord L-, whose hands were in constant, involuntary motion while awake but became perfectly still and at rest the moment he fell asleep—a hallmark feature of the Parkinsonian rest tremor.

Prior to 1800, these symptoms were viewed as separate, independent ailments rather than a unified neurodegenerative condition. James Parkinson’s true breakthrough in 1817 wasn’t discovering these individual symptoms, but realizing they all belonged to the exact same disease.

LOL, I wasn’t advocating that PD didn’t exist before 1800. I was pointing out that there is a view out there that that is exactly the case, and that it was caused by industrial toxins (I seem to recall that was Antoine’s view WHICH I ARGUED AGAINST). My point here was that if you believe as Antoine does that PD is mostly a post 1800 phenomenon, then you can’t at the same time hold the view that PD is a phenotype of brain aging, because you’d be in the absurd position of arguing that the brain didn’t age much before 1800. You can’t have it both ways. FWIW, my own view is that PD is a highly heterogenous disease, not any phenotype of an aging brain. It is further complicated by imprecise grab bag definitions based purely on symptoms like the example of “PD” caused by a street drug in LA that happened to kill substantia nigra cells resulting in PD-like symptoms. But that is not PD, because the causative mechanism is very different from physiological PD pathology like alpha-syn accumulation etc. in classic PD destruction of substantia nigra cells. The same for some more acute or more prolonged exposure to enviromental toxins like pesticides etc.

That is why I advocate focusing on specific pathology and not word games and definition shifting. If we are going to find treatments for as heterogenous a disease as PD, it will be by looking at those mechanisms, not stretching definitions and analogies to the breaking point.

My argument is that ageing is a failure of the genome to function at an adequate level and is an extension of development.

The reasons for that are that the mtDNA gets damaged so that citrate export is reduced and acetylation of nuclear proteins is reduced.

Because there is a form of homeostasis of mtDNA in any one cell through selective mitophagy this can be resisted to some extent also mtDNA can be protected. However, at a point the mitophagy machinery fails (this often results in the fission-mitophagy-fusion process stopping after fission) and then the cell will fail more substantially.

Hence anything that causes additional mtDNA damage will accelerate this process. Industrial toxins have the potential to do this. I have not done a search on this as it seems to be to be obvious that a subset of toxins will cause mitochondrial damage.

There are, therefore, a number of reasons why PD may be more common:
a) People survive other diseases and war, violence, accidents etc.
b) There are some serious toxins around that cause greater mtDNA damage
c) The mtDNA germline has deteriorated on an average basis.
d) Other reasons that I have not thought of yet, but if you ask me I will give this some thought.

None of this is word games or definition shifting. Instead it is a quite precise mechanism. It is a useful debate to have, however.

1 Like

FYI:

Parkinson’s disease: A 2024 two-sample MR (PMC11499214) found associations between galectin-3 and Parkinson’s disease risk.

See full thread here: Three Proteins in Your Blood Predict How Fast You're Aging. Here's What You Can Do About It - #8 by RapAdmin

1 Like

Do SGLT2 Inhibitors Influence Parkinson’s Disease Risk? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials (P6-17.012) 2026

Fourteen trial arms from 12 unique studies (n ≈ 64,000; follow-up 7–50 months) were included. Two arms were excluded from pooled analysis due to zero events in both groups. The pooled OR for PD was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.27–1.12; p = 0.20). Heterogeneity was negligible (I2 = 0%), and the prediction interval ranged from 0.23 to 1.50. Subgroup analyses showed no significant effect for individual agents: empagliflozin 10 mg (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17–2.43), empagliflozin 25 mg (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01–8.15), dapagliflozin 10 mg (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09–1.23), sotagliflozin (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03–2.24), canagliflozin 100 mg (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.31–28.81), and bexagliflozin (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.06–36.99). No evidence of publication bias was detected (Egger’s p = 0.96).

I wouldn’t expect clinical trials to find anything but directionally dapagliflozin looks interesting.

1 Like

Yes, interesting, but looks like dose dependency might give us a clue? For empa, the low dose 10mg gives 0.64 vs 0.33 for 25mg. Then there’s the weird cana 3.0. But all the CI are nutty at the high end. Directionality? At least you could say there is some indication if escalating the dose gets you better OR, means it’s doing something, no?

Aging Immune Networks Linked to Parkinson’s Progression

1 Like