Zabetian, Cyrus P

Objective The aim of this study was to search for genes/variants that modify the effect of LRRK2 mutations in terms of penetrance and age‐at‐onset of Parkinson's disease. Methods We performed the first genomewide association study of penetrance and age‐at‐onset of Parkinson's disease in LRRK2 mutation carriers (776 cases and 1,103 non‐cases at their last evaluation). Cox proportional hazard models and linear mixed models were used to identify modifiers of penetrance and age‐at‐onset of LRRK2 mutations, respectively. We also investigated whether a polygenic risk score derived from a published genomewide association study of Parkinson's disease was able to explain variability in penetrance and age‐at‐onset in LRRK2 mutation carriers. Results A variant located in the intronic region of CORO1C on chromosome 12 (rs77395454; p value = 2.5E‐08, beta = 1.27, SE = 0.23, risk allele: C) met genomewide significance for the penetrance model. Co‐immunoprecipitation analyses of LRRK2 and CORO1C supported an interaction between these 2 proteins. A region on chromosome 3, within a previously reported linkage peak for Parkinson's disease susceptibility, showed suggestive associations in both models (penetrance top variant: p value = 1.1E‐07; age‐at‐onset top variant: p value = 9.3E‐07). A polygenic risk score derived from publicly available Parkinson's disease summary statistics was a significant predictor of penetrance, but not of age‐at‐onset. Interpretation This study suggests that variants within or near CORO1C may modify the penetrance of LRRK2 mutations. In addition, common Parkinson's disease associated variants collectively increase the penetrance of LRRK2 mutations. ANN NEUROL 2021;90:82–94

AbstractBackground: Numerous neuropsychological tests and test versions are used in Parkinson's disease research, but their relative capacity to detect mild cognitive deficits and their comparability across studies are unknown. The objective of this study was to identify neuropsychological tests that consistently detect cognitive decline in PD across studies.Methods: Data from 30 normed neuropsychological tests across 20 international studies in up to 2908 nondemented PD patients were analyzed. A subset of 17 tests was administered to up to 1247 healthy controls. A 2‐step meta‐analytic approach using standardized scores compared performance in PD with normative data.Results: Pooled estimates of the differences between PD and site‐specific healthy controls identified significant cognitive deficits in PD patients on 14 test scores across 5 commonly assessed cognitive domains (attention or working memory, executive, language, memory, and visuospatial abilities), but healthy control performance was statistically above average on 7 of these tests. Analyses based on published norms only, as opposed to direct assessment of healthy controls, showed high between‐study variability that could not be accounted for and led to inconclusive results.Conclusions: Normed neuropsychological tests across multiple cognitive domains consistently detect cognitive deficits in PD when compared with site‐specific healthy control performance, but relative PD performance was significantly affected by the inclusion and type of healthy controls versus the use of published norms only. Additional research is needed to identify a cognitive battery that can be administered in multisite international studies and that is sensitive to cognitive decline, responsive to therapeutic interventions, and superior to individual cognitive tests. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

ABSTRACT As members of the Lewy Body Dementia Association Scientific Advisory Council, we aim to address some of the issues raised in the article titled “Time to Redefine PD? Introductory Statement of the MDS Task Force on the Definition of Parkinson's Disease.” In particular, we suggest that the 1‐year rule distinguishing Parkinson's disease dementia from dementia with Lewy bodies is worth maintaining because it serves an important purpose in clinical practice and clinical and basic science research and when helping the lay community understand the complexity of these different clinical phenotypes. Furthermore, we believe that adding an additional diagnostic label, “PD (dementia with Lewy bodies subtype),” will confuse rather than clarify the distinction between dementia with Lewy bodies and PD or PD dementia, and will not improve management or expedite therapeutic development. We present arguments supporting our contentions. © 2016 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.