SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Accurate long-read sequencing identified GBA variants as a major genetic risk factor in the Luxembourg Parkinson’s study

· 2023-04-18

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2751593/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 Heterozygous variants in the glucocerebrosidase GBAgene are an increasingly recognized risk factor for Parkinson’s disease (PD). Due to the pseudogene GBAP1 that shares 96% sequence homology with the GBAcoding region, accurate variant calling by array-based or short-read sequencing methods remains a major challenge in understanding the genetic landscape of GBA-related PD. We established a novel long-read sequencing technology for assessing the full length of the GBA gene. We used subsequent regression models for genotype-phenotype analyses. We sequenced 752 patients with parkinsonism and 806 healthy controls of the Luxembourg Parkinson’s study. All GBAvariants identified showed a 100% true positive rate by Sanger validation. We found 12% of unrelated PD patients carrying GBA variants. Three novel variants of unknown significance (VUS) were identified. Using a structure-based approach, we defined a potential risk prediction method for VUS. This study describes the full landscape of GBA-related parkinsonism in Luxembourg, showing a high prevalence of GBA variants as the major genetic risk for PD. Our approach provides an important advancement for highly accurate GBA variant calling, which is essential for providing access to emerging causative therapies for GBA carriers.

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.