Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundUntil now, epidemiological evidence regarding the association between vitamin C intake (both diet and supplements) and Parkinson's disease (PD) remains inconsistent. Hence, it is necessary to establish the causal link between vitamin C levels and PD, and further develop effective therapies or prevention.MethodsWe selected 11 newly identified plasma vitamin C genetic variants from a large-scale plasma vitamin C GWAS dataset (n = 52,018) as the effective instrumental variables, and extracted their corresponding GWAS summary statistics from PD (33,674 PD cases and 449,056 controls) and PD age at onset (AAO) (n = 28,568). We then performed a Mendelian randomization (MR) study to evaluate the causal association of plasma vitamin C levels with PD and PD AAO using inverse-variance weighted (IVW), the weighted median, MR-Egger, and MR-PRESSO test.ResultsWe did not observe any significant association between genetically increased vitamin C levels and PD. Interestingly, we found a reduced trend of PD AAO (1.134 years) with 1 SD genetically increased vitamin C levels using IVW (beta = - 1.134, 95% CI: [- 2.515, 0.248], P = 0.108). Importantly, this trend was further successfully verified using both weighted median and MR-Egger. Each 1 SD genetically increased vitamin C levels could reduce PD AAO 1.75 and 2.592 years using weighted median (beta = - 1.750, 95% CI: [- 3.396, - 0.105], P = 0.037) and MR-Egger (beta = - 2.592, 95% CI: [- 4.623, - 0.560], P = 0.012).ConclusionsWe demonstrated the causal association between genetically increased plasma vitamin C levels and reduced PD AAO in people of European descent. Randomized controlled trials are required to clarify whether diet intake or supplement, or both could reduce the AAO of PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.