MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281291604 · doi:10.1002/ana.26416

Polygenic Resilience Modulates the Penetrance of Parkinson Disease Genetic Risk Factors

2022· review· en· W4281291604 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hui Liu, Mohammad Dehestani, Cornelis Blauwendraat, Mary B. Makarious, Hampton L. Leonard, Jonggeol J. Kim, Claudia Schulte, Alastair J. Noyce, Benjamin M. Jacobs, Isabelle F. Foote, Manu Sharma, Mike A. Nalls, Andrew Singleton, Thomas Gasser, Sara Bandrés‐Ciga

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingBarts CharityMedical Research CouncilQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHeritabilityGeneticsDiseaseGenome-wide association studyBiologyAlleleHaploinsufficiencyPenetrancePolygenic risk scoreLocus (genetics)MedicineBioinformaticsOncologyGeneInternal medicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismPhenotypeGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The aim of the current study is to understand why some individuals avoid developing Parkinson disease (PD) despite being at relatively high genetic risk, using the largest datasets of individual‐level genetic data available. Methods We calculated polygenic risk score to identify controls and matched PD cases with the highest burden of genetic risk for PD in the discovery cohort (International Parkinson's Disease Genomics Consortium, 7,204 PD cases and 9,412 controls) and validation cohorts (Comprehensive Unbiased Risk Factor Assessment for Genetics and Environment in Parkinson's Disease, 8,968 cases and 7,598 controls; UK Biobank, 2,639 PD cases and 14,301 controls; Accelerating Medicines Partnership–Parkinson's Disease Initiative, 2,248 cases and 2,817 controls). A genome‐wide association study meta‐analysis was performed on these individuals to understand genetic variation associated with resistance to disease. We further constructed a polygenic resilience score, and performed multimarker analysis of genomic annotation (MAGMA) gene‐based analyses and functional enrichment analyses. Results A higher polygenic resilience score was associated with a lower risk for PD (β = −0.054, standard error [SE] = 0.022, p = 0.013). Although no single locus reached genome‐wide significance, MAGMA gene‐based analyses nominated TBCA as a putative gene. Furthermore, we estimated the narrow‐sense heritability associated with resilience to PD (h2 = 0.081, SE = 0.035, p = 0.0003). Subsequent functional enrichment analysis highlighted histone methylation as a potential pathway harboring resilience alleles that could mitigate the effects of PD risk loci. Interpretation The present study represents a novel and comprehensive assessment of heritable genetic variation contributing to PD resistance. We show that a genetic resilience score can modify the penetrance of PD genetic risk factors and therefore protect individuals carrying a high‐risk genetic burden from developing PD. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:270–278

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207