SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Hunting for Familial Parkinson's Disease Mutations in the Post Genome Era.

Genes (Basel) · 2021-03-17

DOI: 10.3390/genes12030430PMID: 33802862

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

Parkinson's disease (PD) is typically sporadic; however, multi-incident families provide a powerful platform to discover novel genetic forms of disease. Their identification supports deciphering molecular processes leading to disease and may inform of new therapeutic targets. The LRRK2 p.G2019S mutation causes PD in 42.5-68% of carriers by the age of 80 years. We hypothesise similarly intermediately penetrant mutations may present in multi-incident families with a generally strong family history of disease. We have analysed six multiplex families for missense variants using whole exome sequencing to find 32 rare heterozygous mutations shared amongst affected members. Included in these mutations was the KCNJ15 p.R28C variant, identified in five affected members of the same family, two elderly unaffected members of the same family, and two unrelated PD cases. Additionally, the SIPA1L1 p.R236Q variant was identified in three related affected members and an unrelated familial case. While the evidence presented here is not sufficient to assign causality to these rare variants, it does provide novel candidates for hypothesis testing in other modestly sized families with a strong family history. Future analysis will include characterisation of functional consequences and assessment of carriers in other familial 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.