SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Case-Control Association Study of <i>RANTES (</i>-28<i>C</i>><i>G)</i> Polymorphism as a Risk Factor for Parkinson's Disease in Isparta, Turkey.

Parkinsons Dis · 2016-12-18

DOI: 10.1155/2016/5042604PMID: 28078161

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Background. Recent studies have revealed that inflammatory processes are involved in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD). Multiple lines of evidence have suggested that chemokines and their receptors are involved in several neurodegenerative disorders. We have examined whether genetic polymorphisms at the genes encoding chemokines IL-8 (-251A>T), MCP-1 (-2518A/G), and RANTES (-28C>G) and chemokine receptors CCR2 (V64I) and CCR5 (-Δ32) were associated with sporadic PD risk in Isparta, Turkey. Method. The pilot case-control association study included 30 PD patients and 60 control subjects, who were all genotyped with PCR-RFLP for the five polymorphisms. Their genotype and haplotype frequencies were compared statistically. Results. One SNP (-28C>G) in RANTES revealed a significant association with PD (P (allele) p-trend = 0.0007). The risk allele (G) in the homozygous and dominant models (OR = 17.29 and 32.10, 95% CI = 0.86-347.24 and 1.74-591.937, resp.) suggests additional PD risk. The haplotype TGCAN from the IL-8 (-251A>T), MCP-1 (-2518A>G), RANTES (-28C>G), CCR-2 (V64I), and CCR-5 (-Δ32) has protective effect (OR = 0.08 [CI = 0.01-0.63], p = 0.019). Conclusions. Our data are the first indication of the role of RANTES (-28C>G) 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.