SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Evaluating LRRK2 genetic variants with unclear pathogenicity.

Biomed Res Int · 2015-03-02

DOI: 10.1155/2015/678701PMID: 25821816

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

Mutations in the leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) have been known to be a major genetic component affecting Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the pathogenicity of many of the LRRK2 variants is unclear because they have been detected in single patients or also in patients and controls. Here, we selected 5 exonic variants (L1165P, T1410M, M1646T, L2063X, and Y2189C) from each of the protein domain of LRRK2 and analysed their possible association with pathogenicity using in vitro functional assays. Point mutations representing each of these variants were incorporated into the LRRK2 gene, and functional aspects such as the percentage of cell survival upon application of stress and kinase activity were measured. Our results showed that all 5 variants had a significantly negative effect on the survival of cells, in both presence and absence of stress, as compared to the wild-type. In addition, there was also a slight increase in kinase activity in most of the variants in comparison to the wild-type. A negative correlation between cell survival and kinase activity was observed. These data suggest that most of the variants despite being located in different domains of LRRK2 appear to exert a potential pathogenic effect possibly through an increased kinase activity, supporting a gain of function mechanism.

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.