SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Accurate MS-based Rab10 Phosphorylation Stoichiometry Determination as Readout for LRRK2 Activity in Parkinson's Disease.

Mol Cell Proteomics · 2020-06-29

DOI: 10.1074/mcp.ra120.002055PMID: 32601174

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

Pathogenic mutations in the Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2) are the predominant genetic cause of Parkinson's disease (PD). They increase its activity, resulting in augmented Rab10-Thr73 phosphorylation and conversely, LRRK2 inhibition decreases pRab10 levels. Currently, there is no assay to quantify pRab10 levels for drug target engagement or patient stratification. To meet this challenge, we developed an high accuracy and sensitivity targeted mass spectrometry (MS)-based assay for determining Rab10-Thr73 phosphorylation stoichiometry in human samples. It uses synthetic stable isotope-labeled (SIL) analogues for both phosphorylated and nonphosphorylated tryptic peptides surrounding Rab10-Thr73 to directly derive the percentage of Rab10 phosphorylation from attomole amounts of the endogenous phosphopeptide. The SIL and the endogenous phosphopeptides are separately admitted into an Orbitrap analyzer with the appropriate injection times. We test the reproducibility of our assay by determining Rab10-Thr73 phosphorylation stoichiometry in neutrophils of LRRK2 mutation carriers before and after LRRK2 inhibition. Compared with healthy controls, the PD predisposing mutation carriers LRRK2 G2019S and VPS35 D620N display 1.9-fold and 3.7-fold increased pRab10 levels, respectively. Our generic MS-based assay further establishes the relevance of pRab10 as a prognostic PD marker and is a powerful tool for determining LRRK2 inhibitor efficacy and for stratifying PD patients for LRRK2 inhibitor treatment.

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.