SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Peripheral immune cell traits and Parkinson's disease: A Mendelian randomization study.

PLoS One · 2024-03-05

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299026PMID: 38442099

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

BackgroundThe peripheral immune system is altered in Parkinson's disease (PD), but the causal relationship between the two remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to estimate the causal relationship between peripheral immune features and PD using a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) approach.MethodsGenome-wide association study (GWAS) data of peripheral blood immune signatures from European populations were used for exposure and PD summary statistics were used as results. We conducted a two-sample MR study using the inverse-variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger, and weighted median methods to evaluate the causal association between these factors. MR-Egger and MR-PRESSO were used for sensitivity analysis to test and correct horizontal pleiotropy.ResultsA total of 731 immune traits were analyzed for association with PD using three MR methods. After adjustment for FDR, we observed four peripheral immunological features associated with PD using the IVW method, including expression of CX3CR1 on monocytes [OR: 0.85, 95% CI: (0.81, 0.91), P = 6.56E-07] and CX3CR1 on CD14+CD16+ monocytes [OR: 0.87, 95% CI: (0.82, 0.93), P = 9.95E-06].ConclusionsOur study further revealed the important role of monocytes in PD and indicated that CX3CR1 expression on monocytes is associated with a reduced risk of PD.

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.