4.7 Article

Complex segregation analysis of Parkinson's disease: The Mayo Clinic family study

Journal

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 5, Pages 788-795

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.20844

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR03655] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR30582] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIEHS NIH HHS [R01 ES10751] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS33978] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To conduct complex segregation analyses of Parkinson's disease (PD). Methods: Data on the familial aggregation of PD remain conflicting. We conducted a historical cohort study of 1,234 relatives of 162 patients with PD representative of people of Olmsted County, MN, and of 3,009 relatives of 411 patients with PD referred to the Mayo Clinic. Relatives were interviewed and screened for parkinsonism either directly or through a proxy, those who screened positive were examined, or a copy of their medical record was obtained to confirm the diagnosis. For subjects who resided in Olmsted County, additional information was obtained from the archives of the Olmsted County Historical Society and from a records-linkage system. Results: Thirty-two relatives of population-based probands and 69 relatives of referral patients developed PD (101 in total). Combining population-based and referral samples, the model that best explained the familial clustering of PD overall was a major gene with additive effect on the penetrance. This model predicted an average decrease in age at onset of PD of approximately 18 years for each copy of the putative high-risk allele. The best fitting model for younger onset PD (age <= 59 years) was an autosomal recessive model. The best fitting models for older onset PD (age > 59 years) were a recessive or an additive model. Interpretation: The familial aggregation of PD may be explained in part by a major gene with additive effect on the penetrance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available