Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundParkinson's disease (PD) is a genetically complex neurodegenerative disorder. Up to 15% of cases are considered monogenic. However, research on monogenic PD has largely focused on populations of European ancestry, leaving gaps in our understanding of genetic variability in other populations. This study addresses this gap by analysing the allele frequencies of pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in known monogenic PD genes across eight global populations, using data from the gnomAD database.MethodsWe compiled a list of 27 genes associated with Mendelian PD from the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database, and identified pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants using ClinVar. We then performed pairwise comparisons of allele frequencies across populations included in the gnomAD database. Variants with significant frequency differences were further assessed using in silico pathogenicity predictions.ResultsWe identified 81 variants across 17 genes with statistically significant allele frequency differences between at least two populations. Variants in GBA1 were the most prevalent among monogenic PD-related genes, followed by PLA2G6, ATP13A2, VPS13C, and PRKN. GBA1 exhibited the greatest variability in allele frequencies, particularly the NM_000157.4:c.1226A>G (p.Asn409Ser) variant. Additionally, we observed significant population-specific differences in PD-related variants, such as the NM_032409.3:c.1040T>C (p.Leu347Pro) variant in PINK1, which was most prevalent in East Asian populations.ConclusionsOur findings reveal substantial population-specific differences in the allele frequencies of pathogenic variants linked to monogenic PD, emphasising the need for broader genetic studies beyond European populations. These insights have important implications for PD research, genetic screening, and understanding the pathogenesis of PD in diverse populations.
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.