Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThe aim of our study is to better understand the genetic architecture and pathological mechanisms underlying neurodegeneration in idiopathic Parkinson's disease (iPD). We hypothesized that a fraction of iPD patients may harbor a combination of common variants in nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes ultimately resulting in neurodegeneration.MethodsWe used mitochondria-specific polygenic risk scores (mitoPRSs) and created pathway-specific mitoPRSs using genotype data from different iPD case-control datasets worldwide, including the Luxembourg Parkinson's Study (412 iPD patients and 576 healthy controls) and COURAGE-PD cohorts (7,270 iPD cases and 6,819 healthy controls). Cellular models from individuals stratified according to the most significant mitoPRS were subsequently used to characterize different aspects of mitochondrial function.ResultsCommon variants in genes regulating Oxidative Phosphorylation (OXPHOS-PRS) were significantly associated with a higher PD risk in independent cohorts (Luxembourg Parkinson's Study odds ratio, OR = 1.31[1.14-1.50], p-value = 5.4e-04; COURAGE-PD OR = 1.23[1.18-1.27], p-value = 1.5e-29). Functional analyses in fibroblasts and induced pluripotent stem cells-derived neuronal progenitors revealed significant differences in mitochondrial respiration between iPD patients with high or low OXPHOS-PRS (p-values InterpretationOXPHOS-PRS may provide a precision medicine tool to stratify iPD patients into a pathogenic subgroup genetically defined by specific mitochondrial impairment, making these individuals eligible for future intelligent clinical trial designs. ANN NEUROL 2024;96:133-149.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.