SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Genotype-Phenotype Relations for the Dystonia-Parkinsonism Genes <i>GLB1</i>, <i>SLC6A3</i>, <i>SLC30A10</i>, <i>SLC39A14</i>, and <i>PLA2G6</i>: MDSGene Systematic Review.

Int J Mol Sci · 2025-04-25

DOI: 10.3390/ijms26094074PMID: 40362326

Open accessSystematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

The Movement Disorders Society recommends the DYT/PARK prefix for genes where dystonia and parkinsonism are prominent in approximately half or more of patients. This systematic review explores the genotype-phenotype correlations of GLB1, SLC6A3, SLC30A10, PLA2G6, and SLC39A14-recently classified as DYT SLC39A14 and historically linked to dystonia-parkinsonism. We searched PubMed and the Human Gene Mutation Database using standardized terms, including English-language, peer-reviewed publications up to February 2024. Following the MDSGene protocol, we extracted individual-level data on patients with biallelic pathogenic variants and at least one movement disorder. Features were marked "missing" if not explicitly reported. Of 1828 articles, 128 were eligible. We identified 386 patients and 262 variants. The median age at onset was 3 years for GLB1, 3 months for SLC6A3, 2.5 years for SLC30A10, 1.5 years for SLC39A14, and 16 years for PLA2G6. Missing data may reflect underreporting of negative findings. Case reports/serie, may bias toward atypical presentations. Our analysis showed dystonia-parkinsonism predominates in SLC6A3 and PLA2G6, while GLB1, SLC30A10, and SLC39A1 show predominantly dystonic phenotypes with a low frequency of parkinsonism. Ataxia was common in GLB1 and PLA2G6. Awareness of these phenotypes is essential for early diagnosis and intervention, particularly in treatable conditions like SLC30A10 or SLC39A14. The predominantly dystonic phenotype in GLB1, SLC30A10, and SLC39A14 suggest that the DYT prefix may be more appropriate, highlighting the need to reconsider their nomenclature, and the importance of systematic reviews.

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.