SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Association Between BDNF Val66Met Polymorphism and Mild Behavioral Impairment in Patients With Parkinson's Disease.

Front Neurol · 2021-01-14

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.587992PMID: 33584494

Open accessbrief-report; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are common in Parkinson's disease (PD) and have demonstrated an association with the p. Val66Met, a polymorphism in the BDNF gene. Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) is a validated syndrome describing emergent and persistent NPS in older adults as a marker of potential cognitive decline and dementia. This study investigated if PD patients with the Met allele were more likely to have MBI and whether they had impairments in specific domains of MBI using the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C) as the MBI ascertainment tool. One hundred forty-six PD patients were screened for neuropsychiatric and cognitive impairments with the MBI-C and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). All participants were genotyped for the BDNF p.Val66Met single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) using TaqMan Genotyping Assay. Statistical analysis was performed using multiple linear and logistic regression models. Met carriers had a 2 times higher likelihood of being MBI positive (MBI-C total score ≥8) than Val carriers. Met carriers had significantly higher MBI-C total scores and significantly greater impairments in the mood/anxiety and the psychotic domains of MBI-C compared to Val carriers. These findings indicate that the BDNF Met allele is associated with a higher neuropsychiatric burden in PD.

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.