4.5 Article

Insufficient evidence for pathogenicity of SNCA His50Gln (H50Q) in Parkinson's disease

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
Volume 64, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.12.012

Keywords

Parkinson's disease; SNCA; H50Q; His50Gln

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute on Aging) [1ZIA-NS003154-2, Z01-AG000949]
  2. National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
  3. AbbVie
  4. Avid
  5. Biogen
  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  7. Covance
  8. GE Healthcare
  9. Genentech
  10. GlaxoSmithKline
  11. Lilly
  12. Lundbeck
  13. Merck
  14. Meso Scale Discovery
  15. Pfizer
  16. Piramal
  17. Roche
  18. Servier
  19. Teva
  20. UCB
  21. Golub Capital
  22. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  23. Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA)
  24. France Parkinson's Association
  25. NIH [K02NS080915]
  26. Parkinson's Disease Foundation
  27. EU Joint Programme-Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SNCA missense mutations are a rare cause of autosomal dominant Parkinson's disease (PD). To date, 6 missense mutations in SNCA have been nominated as causal. Here, we assess the frequency of these 6 mutations in public population databases and PD case-control data sets to determine their true pathogenicity. We found that 1 of the 6 reported SNCA mutations, His50Gln, was consistently identified in large population databases, and no enrichment was evident in PD cases compared to controls. These results suggest that His50Gln is probably not a pathogenic variant. This information is important to provide counseling for His50Gln carriers and has implications for the interpretation of His50Gln a-synuclein functional investigations. 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