Prioritizing Parkinson’s disease risk genes in genome-wide association loci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many drug targets in ongoing Parkinson's disease (PD) clinical trials have strong genetic links. While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) nominate regions associated with disease, pinpointing causal genes is challenging. Our aim was to prioritize additional druggable genes underlying PD GWAS signals. The polygenic priority score (PoPS) integrates genome-wide information from MAGMA gene-level associations and over 57,000 gene-level features. We applied PoPS to East Asian and European PD GWAS data and prioritized genes based on PoPS, distance to the GWAS signal, and non-synonymous credible set variants. We prioritized 46 genes, including well-established PD genes (SNCA, LRRK2, GBA1, TMEM175, VPS13C), genes with strong literature evidence supporting a mechanistic link to PD (RIT2, BAG3, SCARB2, FYN, DYRK1A, NOD2, CTSB, SV2C, ITPKB), and genes relatively unexplored in PD. Many hold potential for drug repurposing or development. We prioritized high-confidence genes with strong links to PD pathogenesis that may represent our next-best candidates for developing disease-modifying therapeutics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".