4.5 Article

Reduced mitochondrial DNA copy number is a biomarker of Parkinson's disease

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
Volume 38, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.10.033

Keywords

Parkinson's disease; Mitochondria; Biomarker

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0400074, G0900652, MR/L016451/1, G0502157, G1100540] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Parkinson's UK [F-1202] Funding Source: Medline
  3. MRC [G0900652, G0502157, G0400074, G1100540, MR/L016451/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G1100540, MR/L016451/1, G0900652, G0400074, G0502157] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Parkinson's UK [F-1202] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Like any organ, the brain is susceptible to the march of time and a reduction in mitochondrial biogenesis is a hallmark of the aging process. In the largest investigation of mitochondrial copy number in Parkinson's disease (PD) to date and by using multiple tissues, we demonstrate that reduced Parkinson DNA (mitochondrial DNA mtDNA) copy number is a biomarker for the etiology of PD. We used established methods of mtDNA quantification to assess the copy number of mtDNA in n = 363 peripheral blood samples, n = 151 substantia nigra pars compacta tissue samples and n = 120 frontal cortex tissue samples from community-based PD cases fulfilling UK-PD Society brain bank criteria for the diagnosis of PD. Accepting technical limitations, our data show that PD patients suffer a significant reduction in mtDNA copy number in both peripheral blood and the vulnerable substantia nigra pars compacta when compared to matched controls. Our study indicates that reduced mtDNA copy number is restricted to the affected brain tissue, but is also reflected in the peripheral blood, suggesting that mtDNA copy number may be a viable diagnostic predictor of PD. (C) 2016 The Authors. 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