SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Grey matter volume loss in Parkinson's disease psychosis and its relationship with serotonergic gene expression: A meta-analysis.

Neurosci Biobehav Rev · 2023-02-11

DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105081PMID: 36775084

Check source for accessMeta-Analysis; Research 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

BackgroundNeuroanatomical alterations underlying psychosis in Parkinson's Disease (PDP) remain unclear. We carried out a meta-analysis of MRI studies investigating the neural correlates of PDP and examined its relation with dopaminergic and serotonergic receptor gene expression.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched for MRI studies (k studies = 10) of PDP compared to PD patients without psychosis (PDnP). Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images and multiple linear regression analyses was used to examine the relationship between pooled estimates of grey matter volume (GMV) loss in PDP and D1/D2 and 5-HT1a/5-HT2a receptor gene expression estimates from Allen Human Brain Atlas.ResultsWe observed lower grey matter volume in parietal-temporo-occipital regions (PDP n = 211, PDnP, n = 298). GMV loss in PDP was associated with local expression of 5-HT1a (b = 0.109, p = 0.012) and 5-HT2a receptors (b= -0.106, p = 0.002) but not dopaminergic receptors.ConclusionWidespread GMV loss in the parieto-temporo-occipital regions may underlie PDP. Association between grey matter volume and local expression of serotonergic receptor genes may suggest a role for serotonergic receptors in PDP.

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.