SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Immune Cell Proteins and Parkinson's Disease: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis of Causal Associations.

Brain Behav · 2025-07-01

DOI: 10.1002/brb3.70596PMID: 40635349

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundThe neuroimmune interaction mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases have received increasing attention. Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with potential immunoregulatory abnormalities. However, the causal roles of specific immune cell proteins remain unclear.MethodsWe obtained PD and immune cell protein data from an open and free genome-wide association study (GWAS) for subsequent analysis. Two-sample MR analyses with inverse-variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger regression, weighted median, and weighted mode methods were used to evaluate the causal effects. Sensitivity analyses incorporated Cochran's Q test for SNP heterogeneity (prioritizing IVW estimates when present) alongside MR-Egger intercept and leave-one-out evaluations to address horizontal pleiotropy.ResultsThe IVW analysis revealed that the genetically predicted level of three immune cell proteins per standard-deviation increase was positively associated with PD, including CD38 (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.05-1.22, P = 0.001), FcγRIIIB (OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 1.01-1.11, P = 0.019), and CUL4B (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00-1.20, P = 0.012). The IVW analysis also revealed that the genetically predicted level of ADAMTSs per standard-deviation increase was inversely associated with PD (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98, P = 0.013).ConclusionsWe demonstrate that CD38, FcγRIIIB, and CUL4B are risk factors for PD, whereas ADAMTSs is a protective factor.

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.