SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Systematic Review of Extracellular Matrix-Related Alterations in Parkinson's Disease.

Brain Sci · 2024-05-21

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14060522PMID: 38928523

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

The role of the extracellular matrix (ECM) in Parkinson's disease (PD) is not well understood, even though it is critical for neuronal structure and signaling. This systematic review identified the top deregulated ECM-related pathways in studies that used gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA) to document transcriptomic, proteomic, or genomic alterations in PD. PubMed and Google scholar were searched for transcriptomics, proteomics, or genomics studies that employed GSEA on data from PD tissues or cells and reported ECM-related pathways among the top-10 most enriched versus controls. Twenty-seven studies were included, two of which used multiple omics analyses. Transcriptomics and proteomics studies were conducted on a variety of tissue and cell types. Of the 17 transcriptomics studies (16 data sets), 13 identified one or more adhesion pathways in the top-10 deregulated gene sets or pathways, primarily related to cell adhesion and focal adhesion. Among the 8 proteomics studies, 5 identified altered overarching ECM gene sets or pathways among the top 10. Among the 4 genomics studies, 3 identified focal adhesion pathways among the top 10. The findings summarized here suggest that ECM organization/structure and cell adhesion (particularly focal adhesion) are altered in PD and should be the focus of future studies.

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.