SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Skin α-synuclein deposits differ in clinical variants of synucleinopathy: an in vivo study.

Sci Rep · 2018-09-24

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-32588-8PMID: 30250046

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

We aimed to characterize in vivo α-synuclein (α-syn) aggregates in skin nerves to ascertain: 1) the optimal marker to identify them; 2) possible differences between synucleinopathies that may justify the clinical variability. We studied multiple skin nerve α-syn deposits in 44 patients with synucleinopathy: 15 idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD), 12 dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB), 5 pure autonomic failure (PAF) and 12 multiple system atrophy (MSA). Ten healthy subjects were used as controls. Antibodies against native α-syn, C-terminal α-syn epitopes such as phosphorylation at serine 129 (p-syn) and to conformation-specific for α-syn mature amyloid fibrils (syn-F1) were used. We found that p-syn showed the highest sensitivity and specificity in disclosing skin α-syn deposits. In MSA abnormal deposits were only found in somatic fibers mainly at distal sites differently from PAF, IPD and DLB displaying α-syn deposits in autonomic fibers mainly at proximal sites. PAF and DLB showed the highest p-syn load with a widespread involvement of autonomic skin nerve fibers.In conclusion1) p-syn in skin nerves was the optimal marker for the in vivo diagnosis of synucleinopathies; 2) the localization and load differences of aggregates may help to identify specific diagnostic traits and support a different pathogenesis among synucleinopathies.

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.