Large-scale pathway specific polygenic risk and transcriptomic community network analysis identifies novel functional pathways in Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygenic inheritance plays a central role in Parkinson disease (PD). A priority in elucidating PD etiology lies in defining the biological basis of genetic risk. Unraveling how risk leads to disruption will yield disease-modifying therapeutic targets that may be effective. Here, we utilized a high-throughput and hypothesis-free approach to determine biological processes underlying PD using the largest currently available cohorts of genetic and gene expression data from International Parkinson's Disease Genetics Consortium (IPDGC) and the Accelerating Medicines Partnership-Parkinson's disease initiative (AMP-PD), among other sources. We applied large-scale gene-set specific polygenic risk score (PRS) analyses to assess the role of common variation on PD risk focusing on publicly annotated gene sets representative of curated pathways. We nominated specific molecular sub-processes underlying protein misfolding and aggregation, post-translational protein modification, immune response, membrane and intracellular trafficking, lipid and vitamin metabolism, synaptic transmission, endosomal-lysosomal dysfunction, chromatin remodeling and apoptosis mediated by caspases among the main contributors to PD etiology. We assessed the impact of rare variation on PD risk in an independent cohort of whole-genome sequencing data and found evidence for a burden of rare damaging alleles in a range of processes, including neuronal transmission-related pathways and immune response. We explored enrichment linked to expression cell specificity patterns using single-cell gene expression data and demonstrated a significant risk pattern for dopaminergic neurons, serotonergic neurons, hypothalamic GABAergic neurons, and neural progenitors. Subsequently, we created a novel way of building de novo pathways by constructing a network expression community map using transcriptomic data derived from the blood of PD patients, which revealed functional enrichment in inflammatory signaling pathways, cell death machinery related processes, and dysregulation of mitochondrial homeostasis. Our analyses highlight several specific promising pathways and genes for functional prioritization and provide a cellular context in which such work should be done.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".