4.6 Article

The Genetic Etiology of Parkinson's Disease Does Not Robustly Affect Subthalamic Physiology

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 484-489

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.29310

关键词

Parkinson's disease; genetics; beta oscillations; deep brain stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between pathogenic gene variants in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients and electrophysiological activity. The results showed that genetic heterogeneity in PD is not associated with electrophysiological differences, indicating that adaptive deep brain stimulation algorithms would be applicable to genetically heterogeneous patient populations.
BackgroundIt is unknown whether Parkinson's disease (PD) genetic heterogeneity, leading to phenotypic and pathological variability, is also associated with variability in the unique PD electrophysiological signature. Such variability might have practical implications for adaptive deep brain stimulation (DBS). ObjectiveThe aim of our work was to study the electrophysiological activity in the subthalamic nucleus (STN) of patients with PD with pathogenic variants in different disease-causing genes. MethodsElectrophysiological data from participants with negative genetic tests were compared with those from GBA, LRRK2, and PRKN-PD. ResultsWe analyzed data from 93 STN trajectories (GBA-PD: 28, LRRK2-PD: 22, PARK-PD: 10, idiopathic PD: 33) of 52 individuals who underwent DBS surgery. Characteristics of beta oscillatory activity in the dorsolateral motor part of the STN were similar for patients with negative genetic tests and for patients with different forms of monogenic PD. ConclusionsThe genetic heterogeneity in PD is not associated with electrophysiological differences. Therefore, similar adaptive DBS algorithms would be applicable to genetically heterogeneous patient populations. (c) 2023 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