SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Causal Association between Periodontitis and Parkinson's Disease: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Study

· 2020-10-07

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202010.0145.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

Latest evidence revealed a possible association between Parkinson’s disease (PD) and periodontitis. We explored the causal relationship of this association through two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) in European ancestry populations. To this end, we used openly accessible data of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on PD and periodontitis. As instrumental variables for periodontitis, seventeen single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from a GWAS of periodontitis (1817 periodontitis cases vs. 2215 controls) and forty-five SNPs from a GWAS of PD (20,184 cases and 397,324 controls). Eight non-overlapping SNPs of periodontitis from an additional GWAS assisted in the validation of association being studied. Multiple approaches of MR were carried-out. There was no evidence of genetic liability of periodontitis being associated with a higher risk of PD (B= -0.0003, Standard Error [SE] 0.0003, P = 0.26). The eight independent SNPs (B= -0.0000, SE 0.0001, P = 0.99) validated this outcome. We found no association of genetically primed PD towards periodontitis (B= -0.0001, SE 0.0001, P = 0.19). This MR study found no conclusive evidence to support a bidirectional causal genetic liability between PD and periodontitis. Further GWAS studies are needed to confirm the consistency of these results.

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.