SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Polygenic risk prediction and SNCA haplotype analysis in a Latino Parkinson's disease cohort.

Parkinsonism Relat Disord · 2022-06-18

DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2022.06.010PMID: 35917738

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundLarge-scale Parkinson's disease (PD) genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have, until recently, only been conducted on subjects with European-ancestry. Consequently, polygenic risk scores (PRS) constructed using PD GWAS data are likely to be less predictive when applied to non-European cohorts.MethodsUsing GWAS data from the largest study to date, we constructed a PD PRS for a Latino PD cohort (1497 subjects from LARGE-PD) and tested it for association with PD status and age at onset. We validated the PRS performance by testing it in an independent Latino cohort (448 subjects) and by repeating the analysis in LARGE-PD with the addition of 440 external Peruvian controls. We also tested SNCA haplotypes for association with PD risk in LARGE-PD and a European-ancestry PD cohort.ResultsThe GWAS-significant PD PRS had an area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) of 0.668 (95% CI: 0.640-0.695) in LARGE-PD. The inclusion of external Peruvian controls mitigated this result, dropping the AUC 0.632 (95% CI: 0.607-0.657). At the SNCA locus, haplotypes differ by ancestry. Ancestry-specific SNCA haplotypes were associated with PD status in both LARGE-PD and the European-ancestry cohort (p-value ConclusionThe PD PRS has potential for PD risk prediction in Latinos, but variability caused by admixture patterns and bias in a European-ancestry PD PRS data limits its utility. The inclusion of diverse subjects can help elucidate PD risk loci and improve risk prediction in non-European cohorts.

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.