4.7 Article

Neurocirculatory and nigrostriatal abnormalities in Parkinson disease from LRRK2 mutation

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 69, 期 16, 页码 1580-1584

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000268696.57912.64

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [G0701075] Funding Source: Medline
  3. MRC [G0701075] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [G0701075] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with Parkinson disease (PD) often have cardiac sympathetic denervation and failure of neurocirculatory regulation by baroreflexes. Familial PD caused by mutation of the gene encoding alpha-synuclein or by alpha-synuclein gene triplication also features cardiac sympathetic denervation and baroreflex failure. Methods: Here we report results of cardiac sympathetic neuroimaging by 6-[F-18] fluorodopamine PET, baroreflex testing based on beat-to-beat hemodynamic responses to the Valsalva maneuver, and nigrostriatal neuroimaging using 6-[F-18] fluorodopa PET in a proband with mutation of the gene encoding leucine-rich repeat kinase 2(LRRK2), the most common genetic abnormality identified so far in familial PD. Results: The patient had no detectable 6-[F-18] fluorodopamine-derived radioactivity in the left ventricular myocardium, a progressive fall in blood pressure during the Valsalva maneuver and no pressure overshoot after release of the maneuver, and decreased 6-[F-18] fluorodopa-derived radioactivity bilaterally in the putamen and substantia nigra. Conclusion: This patient with Parkinson disease (PD) caused by LRRK2 mutation had evidence of cardiac sympathetic denervation, baroreflex-sympathoneural and baroreflex-cardiovagal failure, and nigrostriatal dopamine deficiency, a pattern resembling that in the sporadic disease. The results fit with the concept that in LRRK2 PD, parkinsonism, cardiac sympathetic denervation, and baroreflex failure can result from a common pathogenetic process.

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

4.7
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