4.5 Article

Lrrk2 p.Q1111H substitution and Parkinson's disease in Latin America

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 629-631

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.05.003

关键词

Parkinson disease; Lrrk2; Latin America

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 NS065070, P50 NS062684, P50 NS072187]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs [1101BX000531]
  3. FONDECYT [1061083]
  4. Parkinson's Disease Foundation
  5. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  6. family of Carl and Susan Bolch
  7. NIH [R24 TW007988]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutations in the LRRK2 gene are the most common genetic cause of Parkinson's disease, with frequencies displaying a high degree of population-specificity. Although more than 100 coding substitutions have been identified, only seven have been proven to be highly penetrant pathogenic mutations. Studies however are lacking in non-white populations. Recently, Lrrk2 p.Q1111H (rs78365431) was identified in two affected Hispanic brothers and absent in 386 non-Hispanic white healthy controls. We therefore screened this variant in 1460 individuals (1150 PD patients and 310 healthy controls) from 4 Latin American countries (Peru, Chile, Uruguay and Argentina). In our case-control series from Peru and Chile we observed an increased frequency of Lrrk2 p.Q1111H in patients (7.9%) compared to controls (5.4%) although the difference did not reach significance (OR 1.38; p = 0.10). In addition, the frequency of Lrrk2 p.Q1111H varied greatly between populations and further screening in a set of pure Amerindian and pure Spanish controls suggested that this variant likely originated in an Amerindian population. Further studies in other Latin American populations are warranted to assess its role as a risk factor for Parkinson's disease. Screening in Parkinson's disease patients from under-represented populations will increase our understanding of the role of LRRK2 variants in disease risk worldwide. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据