SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Finding Genetic Contributors to Parkinson’s Disease via Weighted Gene Co- expression Network Analysis

· 2025-12-01

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8090106/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Abstract Background: As the second most prevalent progressive neurodegenerative disorder, Parkinson’s disease (PD) involves complex pathological processes and lacks definitive diagnostic biomarkers. This study aimed to explore molecular signatures associated with PD to support improved diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for PD patients. Methods: Gene expression profiles from GSE202667 dataset (platform: GPL20844) were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between PD and control samples was assessed using the “limma” package in R software. We used Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) to construct co-expression networks and evaluate their correlation. Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway were performed to explore biological correlations. Hub genes were validated using an independent dataset (GSE54536). Results: A total of 365 common DEGs were identified. WGCNA revealed 4 co-expression modules, with the eigenvalues of the blue module most significantly with PD stages (r=0.78, PLILRB4, LILRB2, FCGR2A, FCGR2B, CCR1, TLR4, ITGAX, and NCAM1 , were identified, of which FCGR2A and FCGR2B were validated as consistently upregulated in PD across datasets. Conclusions: FCGR2A and FCGR2B may serve as immune-related molecular indicators of PD, suggesting a potential role in disease progression and as candidates for further clinical diagnostic and therapeutic development. Further studies with larger and experimentally enriched datasets are recommended.

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.