SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Genetic association study between STK39 and CCDC62/HIP1R and Parkinson's disease.

PLoS One · 2013-11-27

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079211PMID: 24312176

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundThe first large-scale meta-analysis of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in Parkinson's disease (PD) identified 5 new genetic loci (ACMSD, STK39, MCCC1/LAMP3, SYT11, and CCDC62/HIP1R). Very recently, a large-scale replication and heterogeneity study also reported that STK39 and CCDC62/HIP1R increased risk of PD in Asian and Caucasian populations. However, their roles still remain unclear in a Han Chinese population from mainland China.MethodsWe examined genetic associations of STK39 rs2102808 and CCDC62/HIP1R rs12817488 with PD susceptibility in a Han Chinese population of 783 PD patients and 725 controls. We also performed further stratified analyses by the age of onset and accomplished in-depth clinical characteristics analyses between the different genotypes for each locus.ResultsNo significant differences were observed in the minor allele frequency (MAF) among cases and controls at the two loci (STK39 rs2102808: OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.91, 1.23, P = 0.467; CCDC62/HIP1R rs12817488: OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.76, 1.01, P = 0.072). Subgroup analyses by the age of onset also showed no significant differences among different subgroups of the two loci. In addition, minor allele carriers cannot be distinguished from non-carriers based on their clinical features at the two loci.ConclusionsWe are unable to demonstrate the association between STK39 and CCDC62/HIP1R and PD susceptibility in a Han Chinese population from mainland China. Additional replication studies in other populations and functional studies are warranted to better validate the role of the two new loci in PD risk.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.