If NMR can detect PD markers in saliva, why can't MIR detect PD markers?

[pvw2]

A question for technical people, such as sharoncrayn. If NMR can detect PD markers in saliva, why can't MIR detect PD markers?

Saliva Test May Help Diagnose Parkinson’s, Assess Disease Severity, Early Study Finds

parkinsonsnewstoday.com/202...

[sharoncrayn]

You have 2 distinct separate issues here.

#1 In direct answer to your question, MRI is a form of conventional NMR spectroscopy. They are somewhat synonymous approaches although they use different processes. NMR uses nuclear scattering with radiation while MRI uses the intensity of radiation emission.

Thus, MRI is used to obtain images of organs and cells while NMR has traditionally been used for chemical analysis of proteins, etc. The difference lies in the granularity.

#2 EMO NMR has the "potential" for identifying PD markers with the assumption (critical assumption that has never been truly verified) that such PD markers as a-syn and DJ-1 exist in human saliva and somehow identify the severity of the disease. Perhaps.

Do a-syn (total) saliva concentrations actually decrease in PD patients? Why? In what percent of the PD population? What can be done about it if such a marker is truly relevant. Perhaps saliva is a useful source; perhaps it isn't if results aren't truly universal.

Take your article and go read the source on which it is based, which is a meta study of current research covering a wide, wide array neurodegenerative diseases, PD among them.

Another somewhat misleading "pop" science article.

Bottom line? Vivacqua (the principle researcher in this field) even admits his approach "MIGHT" help the early diagnosis of PD, but I say, so what. Identification of PD is generally NOT the critical issue in treating PD unless you believe in the early, early very early dormancy theory, and then again, so what?

[pvw2 in reply to sharoncrayn]

Apparently, their basis is this:

1) PD shows up after 50 to 70% of the substantia nigra (SN) dopamine neurons are lost.

2) They assume we will eventually find a way to stop PD progression.

3) Given the above two, with early detection we could stop PD before any symptoms.

[sharoncrayn in reply to pvw2]

All theoretical.

[pvw2 in reply to sharoncrayn]

Agreed, and quite different than the dormant neurons theory.

[sharoncrayn in reply to pvw2]

Well, Vivacqua and his research is suggesting you "might" create a viable link between the two.

He is trying to point out that the saliva test if done correctly would verify (possibly) that the dormant neurons have already become dormant at a very early life cycle stage.

Let's say he does a saliva on every US vet who leaves at 20 years (40 year birth age group) and finds a decrease in "total" a-syn. Do all these vets end up with PD? If we see over the next 5-10 years they do start to show reliable signs of PD degeneration, what do we do then? This is the crucial dilemma.

If yes, better find something that works better than we have now at a minimal (or reasonable) cost to the health care system.

Sharon

[pvw2 in reply to sharoncrayn]

This explains why PD theories are being highly publicized. The question I keep asking is "How can we be more objective?"

Global $8B Parkinson's Drug Market & Clinical Trial Insights, 2025

finance.yahoo.com/news/glob...

Quote:The parkinson's drug market is currently witnessing exponential growth and emerging as a huge therapeutic market segment with unexplored potential.

...

Further, the intense research and development in parkinson's drug segment has led to discovery of many new compounds, which are currently showing prominent action in various phase of clinical trials.