Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundWidespread neuronal mitochondrial complex I (CI) deficiency was recently reported to be a characteristic in a subgroup of individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD). Here, we sought to determine whether a CI-deficient subgroup could be discerned using clinically accessible muscle biopsies. We further hypothesized that the inconsistency of previous findings of mitochondrial respiratory impairment in PD muscle may be due to interindividual variation, with respiratory deficiency only occurring in a subgroup of cases.MethodsUsing a cross-sectional design, vastus lateralis needle biopsies were collected from 83 individuals with PD and 29 neurologically healthy controls and analyzed by immunohistochemistry for CI and complex IV (CIV), cytochrome c oxidase/succinate dehydrogenase (COX/SDH) histochemistry, and spectrophotometric activity assays of complexes I-IV. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number, deletions, and point variation were analyzed in single muscle fibers and bulk biopsy samples.ResultsWe show that PD muscle exhibits reduced CI activity at the group level, with 9% of cases falling below two standard deviations of the control group. In contrast, the activities of CII-CIV are not significantly different between the PD and control groups. No quantitative change of CI or CIV is detected, and the observed functional CI deficiency is not associated with mtDNA abnormalities.ConclusionsOur findings support the existence of a PD subpopulation characterized by CI pathology in skeletal muscle and suggest that stratification by extra-neural mitochondrial dysfunction may be informative for selecting individuals for clinical trials.
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.