4.5 Article

Association between PARK16 and Parkinson's disease in the Han Chinese population: a meta-analysis

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
Volume 34, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.04.028

Keywords

PARK16; Parkinson's disease; Polymorphism; Disease association

Funding

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan [CMRPG391182]
  2. National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Taiwan [NSC 101-2314-B-182A-065]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PARK16 was reported to alter the risk for Parkinson's disease (PD) in the Japanese population. However, its role in Han Chinese PD patients has not been well established. Herein, we investigated the effect of 4 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the PARK16 locus, including rs823128, rs947211, rs823156, and rs11240572, on the risk of PD by genotyping 497 Taiwanese patients with PD and 500 age-matched control subjects. The results were then meta-analyzed with available genetic association studies in the same population. The meta-analysis showed that PD patients demonstrated a lower frequency of the rs823128 G allele (11.93%) than control subjects (14.04%; odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.96, p = 0.010). The frequency of the rs947211 A allele (40.35%) in PD patients was lower than in control subjects (43.01%; OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, p = 0.047). The rs823156 G allele was less frequently seen in PD patients (17.32%) than in control subjects (21.35%; OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, p < 0.001). A lower frequency of the rs11240572 A allele was found in PD patients (14.01%) than in control subjects (17.66%; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.88, p < 0.001). Our results indicate a robust protective effect of PARK16 in Han Chinese PD patients. Functional approaches are needed to elucidate the effects of these SNPs on the regulation of gene expression. (c) 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available