SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comprehensive Genomic Analysis Reveals the Prognostic Role of <i>LRRK2</i> Copy-Number Variations in Human Malignancies.

Genes (Basel) · 2020-07-24

DOI: 10.3390/genes11080846PMID: 32722212

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

Genetic alterations of leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2), one of the most important contributors to familial Parkinson's disease (PD), have been hypothesized to play a role in cancer development due to demographical and preclinical data. Here, we sought to define the prevalence and prognostic significance of LRRK2 somatic mutations across all types of human malignancies by querying the publicly available online genomic database cBioPortal. Ninety-six different studies with 14,041 cases were included in the analysis, and 761/14,041 (5.4%) showed genetic alterations in LRRK2. Among these, 585 (76.9%) were point mutations, indels or fusions, 168 (22.1%) were copy number variations (CNVs), and 8 (1.0%) showed both types of alterations. One case showed the somatic mutation R1441C. A significant difference in terms of overall survival (OS) was noted between cases harboring somatic LRRK2 whole deletions, amplifications, and CNV-unaltered cases (median OS: 20.09, 57.40, and 106.57 months, respectively; p = 0.0008). These results suggest that both LRRK2 amplifications and whole gene deletions could play a role in cancer development, paving the way for future research in terms of potential treatment with LRRK2 small molecule inhibitors for LRRK2-amplified cases.

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.