SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Mitochondrial and autophagy-lysosomal pathway polygenic risk scores predict Parkinson's disease.

Mol Cell Neurosci · 2022-06-13

DOI: 10.1016/j.mcn.2022.103751PMID: 35710056

Check source for accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS), which allow assessing an individuals' genetic risk for a complex disease, are calculated as the weighted number of genetic risk alleles in an individual's genome, with the risk alleles and their weights typically derived from the results of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Among a wide range of applications, PRS can be used to identify at-risk individuals and select them for further clinical follow-up. Pathway PRS are genetic scores based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) assigned to genes involved in major disease pathways. The aim of this study is to assess the predictive utility of PRS models constructed based on SNPs corresponding to two cardinal pathways in Parkinson's disease (PD) including mitochondrial PRS (Mito PRS) and autophagy-lysosomal PRS (ALP PRS). PRS models were constructed using the clumping-and-thresholding method in a German population as prediction dataset that included 371 cases and 249 controls, using SNPs discovered by the most recent PD-GWAS. We showed that these pathway PRS significantly predict the PD status. Furthermore, we demonstrated that Mito PRS are significantly associated with later age of onset in PD patients. Our results may add to the accumulating evidence for the contribution of mitochondrial and autophagy-lysosomal pathways to PD risk and facilitate biologically relevant risk stratification of 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.