SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

LRRK2 and GBA1 in Lewy body diseases: neuropathological subtypes at opposite ends of a spectrum?

Mol Neurodegener · 2026-04-27

DOI: 10.1186/s13024-026-00939-zPMID: 42045964

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Lewy body diseases (LBDs), including Parkinson’s disease (PD), are defined by the presence of pathological intraneuronal α-synuclein aggregates but exhibit considerable heterogeneity in clinical course, neuropathology, and underlying mechanisms. This review summarizes neuropathological findings in PD associated with pathogenic variants in GBA1 and LRRK2 – the two most common genetic risk factors for PD – and highlights how these genetic forms represent neuropathological subtypes at opposite ends of a spectrum. GBA1-associated PD typically shows widespread Lewy pathology with cortical involvement and relatively limited Alzheimer-type co-pathology, while LRRK2-associated PD may occur with or without Lewy bodies and displays variability in tau and TDP-43 aggregates. We also examine how these genetic forms may serve as models for subtypes within idiopathic PD, including the potential existence of Lewy body-negative idiopathic PD. We propose a conceptual framework in which idiopathic PD encompasses GBA1-like and LRRK2-like subtypes, as well as intermediate forms with mixed pathologies. This perspective supports a shift toward biomarker-informed, mechanism-based classification of PD, beyond genetic labels alone, that may ultimately enable broader application of targeted therapeutic strategies.

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.