SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Clustering of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease based on genetic burden of shared molecular mechanisms.

Sci Rep · 2020-11-05

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76200-4PMID: 33154531

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

One of the visions of precision medicine has been to re-define disease taxonomies based on molecular characteristics rather than on phenotypic evidence. However, achieving this goal is highly challenging, specifically in neurology. Our contribution is a machine-learning based joint molecular subtyping of Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's Disease (PD), based on the genetic burden of 15 molecular mechanisms comprising 27 proteins (e.g. APOE) that have been described in both diseases. We demonstrate that our joint AD/PD clustering using a combination of sparse autoencoders and sparse non-negative matrix factorization is reproducible and can be associated with significant differences of AD and PD patient subgroups on a clinical, pathophysiological and molecular level. Hence, clusters are disease-associated. To our knowledge this work is the first demonstration of a mechanism based stratification in the field of neurodegenerative diseases. Overall, we thus see this work as an important step towards a molecular mechanism-based taxonomy of neurological disorders, which could help in developing better targeted therapies in the future by going beyond classical phenotype based disease definitions.

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.