4.6 Article

Pathogenic LRRK2 Mutations Do Not Alter Gene Expression in Cell Model Systems or Human Brain Tissue

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 6, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022489

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0800437]
  2. Parkinson's UK [F-1002]
  3. Brain Research Trust
  4. Michael J. Fox foundation
  5. Wellcome/MRC Parkinson's Disease Consortium
  6. National Institute on Aging
  7. MRC [G0701075, G0800437, MC_G1000735, G0802462] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Alzheimers Research UK [ART-PPG2011A-14] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [G0701075, G0802462, G0800437, MC_G1000735] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Parkinson's UK [F-1002, G-0506] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Point mutations in LRRK2 cause autosomal dominant Parkinson's disease. Despite extensive efforts to determine the mechanism of cell death in patients with LRRK2 mutations, the aetiology of LRRK2 PD is not well understood. To examine possible alterations in gene expression linked to the presence of LRRK2 mutations, we carried out a case versus control analysis of global gene expression in three systems: fibroblasts isolated from LRRK2 mutation carriers and healthy, non-mutation carrying controls; brain tissue from G2019S mutation carriers and controls; and HEK293 inducible LRRK2 wild type and mutant cell lines. No significant alteration in gene expression was found in these systems following correction for multiple testing. These data suggest that any alterations in basal gene expression in fibroblasts or cell lines containing mutations in LRRK2 are likely to be quantitatively small. This work suggests that LRRK2 is unlikely to play a direct role in modulation of gene expression, although it remains possible that this protein can influence mRNA expression under pathogenic cicumstances.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available