4.5 Review

Quantitative assessment of the effect of LRRK2 exonic variants on the risk of Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 722-730

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.04.013

关键词

Parkinson's disease (PD); LRRK2; PARK8; Variant; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. 973 Program [2010CB529600, 2007CB947300]
  2. 863 Program [2009AA022701]
  3. National Nature Science Foundation of China [30900799]
  4. Shanghai Municipal Commission of Science and Technology Program [09DJ1400601]
  5. National Key Technology RD Program [2006BA105A09]
  6. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [B205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2, PARK8) gene has attracted considerable attention since the variants in this gene are recognized as the most common cause of Parkinson's disease (PD) so far. A number of association studies concerning variants of LRRK2 gene and PD susceptibility have been conducted in various populations. However, some results were inconclusive. To derive a more precise estimation of the relationship between LRRK2 and genetic risk of PD, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis which included 27,363 cases and 29,741 controls from 61 published case-control studies. Totally, the effect of five LRRK2 variants all within the coding regions, i.e. G2019S, G2385R, R1628P, P755L and A419V, were evaluated in the meta-analysis using fixed effect model or random effects model if heterogeneity existed. There were genetic associations between four variants (G2019S, G2385R, R1628P and A419V) and increased PD risk, while there was no evidence of statistically significant association between P755L and PD. Publication bias and heterogeneity were absent in most analyses. Within its limitations, this meta-analysis demonstrated that the G2019S, G2385R, R1628P and A419V variations are risk factors associated with increased PD susceptibility. However, these associations vary in different ethnicities. (c) 2012 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