SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Potential Tear Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease-A Pilot Study.

Proteomes · 2022-01-13

DOI: 10.3390/proteomes10010004PMID: 35076620

Open accessresearch-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 the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer's disease. In this study, the tear proteome profile of patients with idiopathic PD (iPD, n = 24), carriers of the E46K-SNCA mutation (n = 3) and healthy control (CT, n = 27) subjects was analyzed to identify candidate biomarkers for the diagnosis of PD. An observational, prospective and case-control pilot study was carried out, analyzing the participants tear samples by nano-liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (nLC-MS/MS) and assessing their neurological impairment. The proteomic data obtained are available at ProteomeXchange with identifier 10.6019/PXD028811. These analyses led to the identification of 560 tear proteins, some of which were deregulated in PD patients and that have been implicated in immune responses, inflammation, apoptosis, collagen degradation, protein synthesis, defense, lipid transport and altered lysosomal function. Of these proteins, six were related to neurodegenerative processes and showed a good capacity to classify patients and controls. These findings revealed that certain proteins were upregulated in the tears of PD patients, mainly proteins involved in lysosomal function. Thus, in this study, tear proteins were identified that are implicated in neurodegeneration and that may be related to an aggressive disease phenotype in PD patients.

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.