Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundPD is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder commonly treated by levodopa. The findings from genetic studies on adverse effects (ADRs) and levodopa efficacy are mostly inconclusive. Here, we aim to identify predictive genetic biomarkers for levodopa response (LR) and determine common molecular link with disease susceptibility. A systematic review for LR was conducted for ADR, and drug efficacy, independently. All included articles were assessed for methodological quality on 14 parameters. GWAS of PD were also reviewed. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis using STRING and functional enrichment using WebGestalt was performed to explore the common link between LR and PD.ResultsFrom 37 candidate studies on levodopa toxicity, 18 genes were found associated, of which, CAn STR 13, 14 (DRD2) was most significantly associated with dyskinesia, followed by rs1801133 (MTHFR) with hyper-homocysteinemia, and rs474559 (HOMER1) with hallucination. Similarly, 8 studies on efficacy resulted in 4 genes in which rs28363170, rs3836790 (SLC6A3) and rs4680 (COMT), were significant. To establish the molecular connection between LR with PD, we identified 35 genes significantly associated with PD. With 19 proteins associated with LR and 35 with PD, two independent PPI networks were constructed. Among the 67 nodes (263 edges) in LR, and 62 nodes (190 edges) in PD pathophysiology, UBC, SNCA, FYN, SRC, CAMK2A, and SLC6A3 were identified as common potential candidates.ConclusionOur study revealed the genetically significant polymorphism concerning the ADRs and levodopa efficacy. The six common genes may be used as predictive markers for therapy optimization and as putative drug target candidates.
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.