Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectivePrimary Familial Brain Calcification (PFBC) is a rare neurodegenerative disorder characterized by small vessel calcifications in the basal ganglia. PFBC is caused by pathogenic variants in different genes and its physiopathology is still largely unknown. Skin vascular calcifications have been detected in single PFBC cases, suggesting that calcium deposition may not be limited to the brain, but it is unknown whether this is a hallmark of all PFBC genetic and clinical subtypes. This work aims at assessing anatomical and subcellular localization of calcium-phosphate deposits in skin biopsies from PFBC patients to ascertain the accuracy of histological calcium staining in differentiating PFBC from healthy controls (HC) and Parkinson's Disease (PD).MethodsHistopathology and light microscopy of skin biopsy from 20 PFBC, 7 HC and 10 PD subjects (3 mm ø-5 mm deep punch biopsies, Hematoxylin-Eosin and vonKossa staining, immunoperoxidase CD31 staining); clinical, genetic and radiological assessment.ResultsUnlike HC and PD subjects, the majority of PFBC patients (17/20) showed a consistent pattern of granular argyrophilic calcium-phosphate deposits in the basal lamina and the cytoplasm of CD31+ endothelial cells and pericytes of dermal capillaries, and the basement membrane of sweat glands. This pattern was unrelated to the underlying mutated gene or clinical status.InterpretationSkin biopsy may be a novel PFBC diagnostic tool and a potential biomarker for future therapies, and a tool to investigate PFBC disease mechanisms. Different findings in some patients could be due to skin sampling variability and biological consequences of specific PFBC gene variants.
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.