NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Many genetic variants have been linked to familial or sporadic Parkinson's disease (PD), among which those identified in PARK16, BST1, SNCA, LRRK2, GBA and MAPT genes have been demonstrated to be the most common risk factors worldwide. Moreover, complex gene-gene and gene-environment interactions have been highlighted in PD pathogenesis. Compared to studies focusing on the predisposing effects of genes, there is a relative lack of research investigating how these genes and their interactions influence the clinical profiles of PD. In a cohort consisting of 2,011 Chinese Han PD patients, we selected 9 representative variants from the 6 above-mentioned common PD genes to analyze their main and epistatic effects on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and the Hoehn and Yahr (H-Y) stage of PD. With multiple linear regression models adjusting for medication status, disease duration, gender and age at onset, none of the variants displayed significant main effects on UPDRS or the H-Y scores. However, for gene-gene interaction analyses, 7 out of 37 pairs of variants showed significant or marginally significant associations with these scores. Among these, the GBA rs421016 (L444P)×LRRK2 rs33949390 (R1628P) interaction was consistently significant in relation to UPDRS III and UPDRS total (I+II+III), even after controlling for the family-wise error rate using False Discovery Rate (FDR-corrected p values are 0.0481 and 0.0070, respectively). Although the effects of the remaining pairs of variants did not survive the FDR correction, they showed marginally significant associations with either UPDRS or the H-Y stage (raw p<0.05). Our results highlight the importance of epistatic effects of multiple genes on the determination of PD clinical profiles and may have implications for molecular classification and personalized intervention of the disease.
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.