Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Identifying biological factors which contribute to the clinical progression of heterogeneous motor and non-motor phenotypes in Parkinson's disease may help to better understand the disease process. Several lipid-related genetic risk factors for Parkinson's disease have been identified, and the serum lipid signature of Parkinson's disease patients is significantly distinguishable from controls. However, the extent to which lipid profiles are associated with clinical outcomes remains unclear. Untargeted high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry identified >900 serum lipids in Parkinson's disease subjects at baseline (n = 122), and the potential for machine learning models using these lipids to predict motor and non-motor clinical scores after 2 years (n = 67) was assessed. Machine learning models performed best when baseline serum lipids were used to predict the 2-year future Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale part three (UPDRS III) and Geriatric Depression Scale scores (both normalised root mean square error = 0.7). Feature analysis of machine learning models indicated that species of lysophosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylcholine, platelet-activating factor, sphingomyelin, diacylglycerol and triacylglycerol were top predictors of both motor and non-motor scores. Serum lipids were overall more important predictors of clinical outcomes than subject sex, age and mutation status of the Parkinson's disease risk gene LRRK2. Furthermore, lipids were found to better predict clinical scales than a panel of 27 serum cytokines previously measured in this cohort (The Michael J. Fox Foundation LRRK2 Clinical Cohort Consortium). These results suggest that lipid changes may be associated with clinical phenotypes in Parkinson's disease.
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.