4.5 Article

LRRK2 protective haplotype and full sequencing study in REM sleep behavior disorder

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 98-101

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.03.019

关键词

REM sleep behavior disorder; Parkinson disease; Genetics; LRRK2

资金

  1. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  2. Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA)
  3. MRC [MR/L023784/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Individuals with rapid eye movement (REM)-sleep behavior disorder (RBD) are likely to progress to synucleinopathies, mainly Parkinson's disease (PD), dementia with Lewy-bodies (DLB) and multiple system atrophy (MSA). The genetics of RBD only partially overlaps with PD and DLB, and the role of LRRK2 variants in risk for RBD is still not clear. Methods: The full coding sequence, exon-intron boundaries and 5' and 3' untranslated regions of LRRK2 were sequenced using targeted next-generation sequencing. A total of 350 RBD patients and 869 controls were sequenced, and regression and burden models were used to examine the association between LRRK2 variants and RBD. Results: No pathogenic mutations that are known to cause PD were identified in RBD patients. The p.N551K-p.R1398H-p.K1423K haplotype was associated with a reduced risk for RBD (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.98, p = 0.0055 for the tagging p.N551K substitution). A common variant, p.S1647T, was nominally associated with risk for RBD (OR = 1.28, 95% Cl 1.05-1.56, p = 0.029). Burden analysis identified associations with domains and exons that were derived by the variants of the protective haplotype, and no burden of other rare variants was identified. Conclusions: Carriers of the LRRK2 p.N551K-p.R1398H-p.K1423K haplotype have a reduced risk for developing RBD, yet PD-causing mutations probably have minor or no role in RBD. Additional work is needed to confirm these results and to identify the mechanism associated with reduced risk for RBD. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据