NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundTo date, nine Parkinson disease (PD) genome-wide association studies in North American, European and Asian populations have been published. The majority of studies have confirmed the association of the previously identified genetic risk factors, SNCA and MAPT, and two studies have identified three new PD susceptibility loci/genes (PARK16, BST1 and HLA-DRB5). In a recent meta-analysis of datasets from five of the published PD GWAS an additional 6 novel candidate genes (SYT11, ACMSD, STK39, MCCC1/LAMP3, GAK and CCDC62/HIP1R) were identified. Collectively the associations identified in these GWAS account for only a small proportion of the estimated total heritability of PD suggesting that an 'unknown' component of the genetic architecture of PD remains to be identified.MethodsWe applied a GWAS approach to a relatively homogeneous Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population from New York to search for both 'rare' and 'common' genetic variants that confer risk of PD by examining any SNPs with allele frequencies exceeding 2%. We have focused on a genetic isolate, the AJ population, as a discovery dataset since this cohort has a higher sharing of genetic background and historically experienced a significant bottleneck. We also conducted a replication study using two publicly available datasets from dbGaP. The joint analysis dataset had a combined sample size of 2,050 cases and 1,836 controls.ResultsWe identified the top 57 SNPs showing the strongest evidence of association in the AJ dataset (p ConclusionsWe have demonstrated the utility of the AJ dataset in PD candidate gene and SNP discovery both by replication in dbGaP datasets with a larger sample size and by replicating association of previously identified PD susceptibility genes. Our GWAS study has identified candidate gene regions for PD that are implicated in neuronal signalling and the dopamine pathway.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.