4.6 Article

The Rostock International Parkinson's Disease (ROPAD) Study: Protocol and Initial Findings

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 1005-1010

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.28416

关键词

Parkinson's disease; observational clinical study; genetic factors; LRRK2; GBA

资金

  1. Denali Therapeutics Inc. (South San Francisco, CA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ROPAD study aims to genetically characterize around 10,000 Parkinson's disease patients, with initial data from 1360 participants indicating a genetic diagnostic yield of approximately 14%. This demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of the screening protocol for high-throughput genetic characterization and prioritization for research efforts and clinical trials.
Background Genetic stratification of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients facilitates gene-tailored research studies and clinical trials. The objective of this study was to describe the design of and the initial data from the Rostock International Parkinson's Disease (ROPAD) study, an epidemiological observational study aiming to genetically characterize similar to 10,000 participants. Methods Recruitment criteria included (1) clinical diagnosis of PD, (2) relative of participant with a reportable LRRK2 variant, or (3) North African Berber or Ashkenazi Jew. DNA analysis involved up to 3 successive steps: (1) variant (LRRK2) and gene (GBA) screening, (2) panel sequencing of 68 PD-linked genes, and (3) genome sequencing. Results Initial data based on the first 1360 participants indicated that the ROPAD enrollment strategy revealed a genetic diagnostic yield of similar to 14% among a PD cohort from tertiary referral centers. Conclusions The ROPAD screening protocol is feasible for high-throughput genetic characterization of PD participants and subsequent prioritization for gene-focused research efforts and clinical trials. (c) 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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

4.6
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