Vol 58, No 1 (2024)
Invited Review Article
Published online: 2024-01-04

open access

Page views 1153
Article views/downloads 1035
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Genetics of Parkinson’s Disease: state-of-the-art and role in clinical settings

Jarosław Dulski1234, Owen A. Ross45, Zbigniew K. Wszolek1
Pubmed: 38175148
Neurol Neurochir Pol 2024;58(1):38-46.

Abstract

Introduction. Advances in sequencing technologies have enabled extensive genetic testing on an individual basis. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have provided insight into the pathophysiology of PD. Additionally, direct-to-consumer genetic testing has enabled the identification of genetic diseases and risk factors without genetic counselling. As genetics increasingly permeates clinical practice, this paper aims to summarise the most important information on genetics in PD forclinical practitioners.

State-of-the-art. LRRK2 mutations may be found in c.1% of all PD patients with an indistinguishable phenotype from sporadic PD. LRRK2-PD is more prevalent in patients with a positive family history (5-6%) and among certain populations (e.g. up to 41% in North Africans and Ashkenazi Jews). Other familial forms include PRKN (patients with early onset, EOPD), VPS35 (Western European ancestry), PINK1 (EOPD), DJ-1 (EOPD), and SNCA. GBA mutations are found in a large number of PD patients and are associated with faster progression and a poorer prognosis. GWAS have identified 90 genetic risk variants for developing PD and several genetic modifiers for the age at onset, disease progression, and response to treatment.


Clinical implications. Multigene panels using next-generation sequencing (NGS) are the first choice for genetic testing in clinical settings. Whole exome sequencing is increasingly being used, particularly as the second-tier testing in patients with negative results of multigene panels. NGS may not detect accurately copy number variants (CNV), meaning that additional analysis is warranted. In a case of a variant of unknown significance (VUS), we suggest firstly searching the up-to-date literature. Segregation studies and in silico predictions may shed more light on the character of the VUS; however, functional studies remain the gold standard. Several interventional clinical trials are active for carriers of LRRK2 and/or GBA mutations.

Future directions. Application of artificial intelligence and machine learning will enable high-throughput analysis of large
sets of multimodal data. We speculate that, in the future, the treatment landscape for PD will be similar to that in oncological conditions, in which the presence of certain gene mutations or gene overexpression determines the prognosis and treatment decision-making.

INVITED REVIEW ARTICLE

Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska

Polish Journal of Neurology and Neurosurgery

2024, Volume 58, no. 1, pages: 38–46

DOI: 10.5603/pjnns.97806

Copyright © 2024 Polish Neurological Society

ISSN: 0028-3843, e-ISSN: 1897-4260

Genetics of Parkinson’s Disease: state-of-the-art and role in clinical settings

Jarosław Dulski1–4Owen A. Ross45Zbigniew K. Wszolek1
1Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
2Division of Neurological and Psychiatric Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
3Neurology Department, St Adalbert Hospital, Copernicus PL Ltd., Gdansk, Poland
4Department of Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
5Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Address for correspondence: Jarosław Dulski, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA; e-mail: Dulski.Jaroslaw@mayo.edu

Received: 11.10.2023 Accepted: 28.11.2023 Early publication date: 04.01.2024

ABSTRACT
Introduction. Advances in sequencing technologies have enabled extensive genetic testing on an individual basis. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have provided insight into the pathophysiology of PD. Additionally, direct-to-consumer genetic testing has enabled the identification of genetic diseases and risk factors without genetic counselling. As genetics increasingly permeates clinical practice, this paper aims to summarise the most important information on genetics in PD for clinical practitioners.
State-of-the-art. LRRK2 mutations may be found in c.1% of all PD patients with an indistinguishable phenotype from sporadic PD. LRRK2-PD is more prevalent in patients with a positive family history (5-6%) and among certain populations (e.g. up to 41% in North Africans and Ashkenazi Jews). Other familial forms include PRKN (patients with early onset, EOPD), VPS35 (Western European ancestry), PINK1 (EOPD), DJ-1 (EOPD), and SNCA. GBA mutations are found in a large number of PD patients and are associated with faster progression and a poorer prognosis. GWAS have identified 90 genetic risk variants for developing PD and several genetic modifiers for the age at onset, disease progression, and response to treatment.
Clinical implications. Multigene panels using next-generation sequencing (NGS) are the first choice for genetic testing in clinical settings. Whole exome sequencing is increasingly being used, particularly as the second-tier testing in patients with negative results of multigene panels. NGS may not detect accurately copy number variants (CNV), meaning that additional analysis is warranted. In a case of a variant of unknown significance (VUS), we suggest firstly searching the up-to-date literature. Segregation studies and in silico predictions may shed more light on the character of the VUS; however, functional studies remain the gold standard. Several interventional clinical trials are active for carriers of LRRK2 and/or GBA mutations.
Future directions. Application of artificial intelligence and machine learning will enable high-throughput analysis of large sets of multimodal data. We speculate that, in the future, the treatment landscape for PD will be similar to that in oncological conditions, in which the presence of certain gene mutations or gene overexpression determines the prognosis and treatment decision-making.
Keywords: hereditary, monogenic, familial, sequencing, GWAS
(Neurol Neurochir Pol 2024; 58 (1): 139–141)

Introduction

The clinical and research stance on the heritability of Parkinson’s Disease (PD) has come full circle. It has long been acknowledged that PD is non-genetic; however, the mapping and discovery of the first genes in familial PD at the end of the 20th century proved the importance of genetic factors in PD [1, 2]. Over the past two decades, more than 100 genetic loci have been associated with PD and other forms of parkinsonism [3]. Recent advances in sequencing technologies and analyses have made it possible to conduct extensive genetic testing on an individual basis in clinically relevant timeframes [4]. However, the initial enthusiasm cooled when the emerging data revealed a low diagnostic yield of clinical genetic testing in PD, and so the extent of genetics relevance in PD remains an unsolved conundrum.

Although a positive family history in a first-degree relative increases the risk of developing PD two- to three-fold compared to controls, only 15% of patients have a positive family history, and even fewer, c.510%, have a familial form of the disease [5, 6].

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS), in which hundreds of thousands of genetic variants across many genomes are tested to check for potential phenotype associations, have raised fresh hopes in addressing the relevance of genetics in PD. GWAS have provided further insight into the risk factors of developing PD, its progression, and its response to treatment, although applying these findings in clinical practice remains challenging. In addition, commercial testing through direct-to-consumer genetic testing has enabled the identification of genetic diseases and risk factors without genetic counselling, and found many PD patients reporting to healthcare professionals to address issues raised by these tests.

As genetics increasingly permeates clinical practice, and as most patients will at some point approach their primary neurologist about their genetic status or advances in the field, we must learn genetics and become fluent in this new lingua franca.

Therefore, this paper aims to summarise the most important information on genetics in PD for clinical practitioners, and looks into the possible applications of genetic testing in managing PD patients in the near future.

State-of-the-art

Familial forms of PD (Tab. 1)
LRRK2

The most common genetic form of PD is related to mutations in LRRK2, which are inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion and display incomplete, age-dependent penetrance [3, 7, 8]. LRRK2 mutations are found in 56% of familial, and 1% of sporadic, PD cases [3, 9]. As per the Human Gene Mutation Database Professional (HGMD, version 2023.2), to date almost all of the pathogenic mutations (97%) have been missense/nonsense variants [10]. Due to the founder effect, the prevalence of LRRK2 mutations is even higher in certain populations, including North African Berber and Ashkenazi Jewish (p.G2019S mutation in up to 41% and 34% of familial and sporadic cases), as well as northern Spanish (p.R1441G), Italian and Belgian (p.R1441C) populations [9]. The phenotype is that of typical PD, with a late onset, slow progression, and good response to L-Dopa [3, 7, 9].

Table 1. Characteristics of most common familial forms of Parkinson’s Disease

LRRK2

PRKN

VPS35

PINK1

DJ-1

SNCA

VPS13C

Prevalence: sporadic PD

1%

0.3-1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.02%

0.01%

< 0.01%

Prevalence:

familial PD

5–6%

2–3%

< 1%

< 1%

< 0.5%

< 0.5%

< 0. 1%

Inheritance

AD

AR

AD

AR

AR

AD

AR

Penetrance

Incomplete, age-dependent, 15–95%

Complete

Incomplete, age-dependent

Complete

Complete

Incomplete

N/A

Pathogenic mutations

Missense/nonsense variants

Structural and missense/nonsense variants

Asp620Asn

Missense/nonsense and structural variants

Missense/nonsense and structural variants

Structural and missense/nonsense variants

Missense/nonsense and structural variants

Phenotype

Typical PD, with a late onset, slow progression, and good response to L-Dopa

EOPD, benign course, good response to L-Dopa, high frequency of bradykinesia and rigidity, susceptibility to impulse control disorder

Typical PD, slow progression, good response to L-Dopa, and a low risk of atypical features

EOPD, benign course, good response to L-Dopa, higher frequency of dystonia and dysautonomia

EOPD, slow progression, good response to L-Dopa, susceptibility for psychiatric symptoms, dystonia, dysautonomia

Duplications: benign phenotype with slow progression; Triplications: early onset, rapid progression, atypical features.

Missense variants (A53T): intermediate phenotype

EOPD, fast progression, good response to L-Dopa, susceptibility for early cognitive decline, psychiatric symptoms, dystonia, atypical features

Protein function

Neuronal vesicular trafficking, mitochondrial functions, autophagy

Mitochondrial homeostasis and mitophagy

Recycling of transmembrane receptors

Mitochondrial homeostasis and mitophagy

Mitochondrial homeostasis and mitophagy

Synaptic plasticity, neuronal homeostasis, mitochondrial activity

Mitochondrial homeostasis and mitophagy

Post mortem features

α-synuclein, tau-pathology, TDP-43

Rarely α-synuclein pathology

Negative for α-synuclein*

α-synuclein*

tau-pathology*

α-synuclein

α-synuclein

PRKN

Homozygous or compound heterozygous PRKN mutations are the second most common cause of genetic PD [3, 11]. They are most often found in early-onset PD (EOPD), accounting for up to 15%, and 50% with the onset aged 25-50 years [3, 12–14]. Most pathogenic mutations are exonic deletions, followed by missense/nonsense variants and exon duplications [10]. In certain populations, the prevalence of PRKN-PD may be higher; for instance, it accounts for 8% and 6% of familial and sporadic PD in Japan [15]. The phenotype is that of EOPD with slow progression, good response to L-Dopa, high frequency of bradykinesia, and rigidity.

VPS35

VPS35-PD is autosomal dominant familial PD with incomplete penetrance and c.150 cases reported worldwide, with an estimated prevalence of less than 1% of familial PD and 0.1% of sporadic PD cases [3, 16]. To date, pathogenicity has been confirmed only for the p.D620N mutation; however, three other missense/nonsense variants and one deletion have been suggested to be linked with PD [10]. The phenotype is that of typical PD, with slow progression, good response to L-Dopa, and a low risk of atypical features [3, 16].

PINK1

PINK1-PD is an autosomal-recessive with complete penetrance and an estimated prevalence of 0.1% of sporadic and less than 1% of familial PD [3, 17]. It is more common in younger patients, accounting for up to 5% of EOPD worldwide [3]. Most pathogenic mutations are missense/nonsense variants (70%), followed by structural variants [10]. The phenotype is EOPD with a benign course and good response to L-Dopa, albeit with a higher frequency of dystonia and dysautonomia [3, 17].

DJ-1

DJ-1-PD is a very rare genetic form of PD, with autosomal recessive inheritance, complete penetrance, and an estimated prevalence of 0.02% of sporadic, less than 0.5% of familial PD, and up to 1% of EOPD cases [3]. Missense/nonsense variants are the most common (42%), followed by deletions (36%) [10]. The phenotype is that of EOPD, with slow progression and a good response to L-Dopa. However, compared to typical PD, there is a higher susceptibility for psychiatric manifestations, dystonia, and dysautonomia [3].

SNCA

Pathogenic SNCA mutations may be found in up to 0.01% of sporadic PD cases and less than 0.5% of familial PD cases [3]. SNCA-PD is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion and displays incomplete penetrance [3]. Whole-gene multiplications are the most common variants (70%), followed by missense variants [10]. Penetrance, age at onset, and phenotype severity are associated with SNCA dosage, with a higher copy number having a worse disease course [18].

VPS13C, DNAJC6 and other genes

VPS13C-PD is a very rare autosomal recessive form of PD, reported to date in only 18 cases [18]. Missense/nonsense variants are the most common, followed by deletions. The phenotype is that of EOPD with a good response to L-Dopa, albeit with faster disease progression, earlier cognitive decline, and higher risk for atypical features compared to sporadic PD [18].

DNAJC6-PD is another rare form of autosomal recessive PD with the age at onset of before 21 years, frequently accompanied by developmental delay, seizures, dystonia, myoclonus, and varied responses to L-Dopa and other dopaminergic medications [19, 20]. Mutations in several other genes have been identified as being associated with PD, including ARSA, CHCHD2, DNAJC13, EIF4G1, GIGYF2, HTRA2, LRP10, NUS1, SMPD1, RIC3, TMEM230, and UCHL1, but as the data on them is limited and sometimes contradictory, they await further validation [21].

Intermediate forms of PD

GBA encodes a lysosomal enzyme β-glucocerebrosidase (GCase), and biallelic variants within the gene were classically associated with Gaucher’s Disease [3, 7]. At present, GBA variants are mostly researched and clinically tested in the context of PD, in which they occur in 5-30% of all patients, making it the most common genetic risk factor [3, 7, 22]. As a relatively high proportion of GBA variant carriers develop PD, there is as yet no consensus on whether it is a risk factor or a monogenic form of PD. Overall, the cumulative risk for developing PD in GBA variant carriers is 5%; however, this increases with age up to 10% and 30% by the ages of 60 and 80, respectively [3, 7, 23]. To date, at least 240 GBA variants have been linked to PD, of which the majority are missense/nonsense variants (83%) [10]. The missense variants p.N370S, p.E326K, p.T369M, and p. L444P, are the most common and constitute more than 80% of GBA variants in the PD population [3].

The GBA variants differ in the extent to which they impact upon the activity of GCase, with the p.L444P variant decreasing the activity by the most, and being associated with the highest risk of PD and the worst severity. In contrast, the variants p.E326K and p.T369M have the mildest impact on GCase activity and convey lower risk and milder severity of PD, while p.N370S is intermediate in terms of PD risk development and phenotype severity [22]. Recent research has demonstrated that impairment of GCase activity leads to aggregation and accumulation of α-synuclein, which in turn further inhibits the activity of GCase [24].

Overall, GBA variants in PD are associated with younger age at onset, faster cognitive and motor progression, and a higher burden of non-dopaminergic symptoms (i.e. freezing of gait, postural instability) [3, 7, 22].

Population genetics of PD

Over the last 15 years, several GWAS have been conducted in PD, partly explaining the risk of developing the disease and its heterogeneity [3, 21]. So far, 90 independent common genetic risk variants have been identified, accounting for 1636% of heritable disease risk [25]. Common genetic variation has also impacted upon the age at onset, with attributed variability of 811% [26, 27]. A number of genetic variants have been associated with the rate of motor progression, susceptibility to L-Dopa-induced dyskinesia, and motor fluctuations [28–31]. Common genetic variations have also been associated with non-motor symptoms, including susceptibility to cognitive decline, REM sleep behaviour disorder, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and impulse control disorder [28–30, 32, 33]. One study looked into genetic determinants of clinical PD subtypes, tremor-dominant vs. postural instability and gait difficulty, identifying several suggestive associations, but none reached genome-wide significance [34]. Common genetic variants have also been linked to different treatment outcomes, including therapy with subthalamic deep brain stimulation [35].

GWAS nominated several novel genes to be included in the pathophysiology of PD, providing new insights into the biological pathways involved in PD [3, 21]. Furthermore, many of the ‘top hits’ from the GWAS have been linked to genes previously identified in familial forms of PD, which shows that sporadic and familial forms of PD share pathophysiological pathways [3, 21].

However, GWAS are also burdened with several shortcomings. Most of the findings from initial studies have not been replicated subsequently due to different designs (particularly in terms of population structure), non-sufficient statistical power, inconsistencies in clinical measures, and the possible inclusion of patients with disorders other than PD [3, 21]. Additionally, as the results from previous studies indicated that different genetic loci impact upon the risk of developing PD and its heterogeneity, studying them together could reduce the research yield [3].

Many of the identified variants in the GWAS are mapped to non-coding regions of the DNA, and pinpointing the causal gene is challenging [36]. Interestingly, only 30% of the causal genes are the nearest gene to the GWAS-identified variant [36]. In recent years, it has become possible to predict more reliably the functional effects of the candidate variants and identify the target gene [36]. However, in silico models may not be accurate enough, and animal studies are still required to confirm the causal gene [36].

Most previous studies were conducted on PD patients of European ancestry [21]. Therefore, the currently developed algorithms for polygenic risk score estimation are of limited use to patients of other ancestries, and more research on ethnically diverse populations is needed to ascertain the significance of the previously identified variants in the pathogenesis of PD [21]. Despite identifying more than 100 genetic risk variants or phenotype modifiers, at present they can only be used to estimate the likelihood of developing, but not to discriminate whether the patient finally develops, the disease and the particular phenotype. Thus far, the heritability and clinical heterogeneity of PD may only partly be explained by the polygenic scores, while most underlying causes remain undetermined. It is also possible that shared environmental factors, which remain common confounders in GWASs, could have falsely inflated the heritability estimates and influenced the heterogeneity, spuriously reducing the significance of the identified variants [36].

Polish patients

The population of Polish patients with PD remains genetically understudied (see Table 2). The most common monogenic form of PD is LRRK2-PD, with a prevalence of up to 1% [37, 38]. PRKN-PD and PINK1-PD have been detected in up to 5% and in 1% of Polish patients with EOPD, respectively [39, 40] [40, 41]. SNCA-PD was found in 0.3% of Polish patients with sporadic PD, whereas VPS35 and DJ-1-PD have not yet been reported [42]. To date, two studies have investigated GBA mutations in the Polish population, including only two (p.N370S, p.T369M) of the four most common GBA variants [43, 44].

Overall, genetic studies on Polish PD populations have yielded lower results than those conducted in other European populations. This is surprising given the long history of interaction between Poland and its neighbours and the influx of immigrants, mainly from Germany (1316th centuries), Italy (1416th centuries), the Netherlands (1516th centuries), Scandinavia (from 15th century), and England and Scotland (16th century) [45]. For instance, a family with PD-LRRK2 p.N1437H, a mutation previously only reported in Scandinavia, was recently identified in Poland [56]. Moreover, Ashkenazi Jewish and Polish populations have shared a common history for more than 1 thousand years. Thus, the prevalence of genetic forms of PD, particularly LRRK2, in the Polish population is probably underestimated. However, recent genetic studies indicated homogeneity of the Polish population, with different frequencies of pathogenic alleles compared to other European populations [53]. We cannot exclude the possibility that there are other genetic forms of PD specific to Polish populations that remain undiscovered. Therefore, more studies are needed to ascertain the genetics of the Polish PD population.

Common genetic variants and PD symptomatology

Several common genetic variations have been identified as impacting upon the progression of the disease, the burden of motor and non-motor symptoms (particularly dementia), and prognosis in general [3]. Apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele and polymorphisms in several other genes have been associated with faster cognitive decline [3, 54]. Susceptibility to developing impulse control disorder has been linked to variants in COMT, DRD1, DRD2, DRD3, and DDC [3]. The age of the first symptoms has been related to SNCA, TMEM175, and BST1 variants [3]. The rate of motor progression, predisposition to develop dyskinesia, and fluctuations have been associated with polymorphisms in COMT, DRD3, LRRK2, GBA, OPRM1, and several other genes [3]. Some variants have been linked to a different clinicaltrajectory following treatment with advanced therapies, e.g. CRHR1, IP6K2, and PRSS3 polymorphisms have been associated with a higher burden of axial symptoms following deep brain stimulation (DBS) [35]. Most of these variants individually have a low impact on the disease symptomatology, but combined they can be used to calculate polygenic risk scores and identify patients more prone to certain manifestations of the disease or to adverse effects of the therapy. For instance, carriers of APOE4 and GBA variants are more likely to develop cognitive decline post-DBS [55, 56].

Table 2. Familial forms of PD and GBA mutations reported in Polish population

LRRK2

PRKN

VPS35

PINK1

DJ-1

SNCA

GBA

Prevalence

0–1% [37, 38]

0–4.7% in EOPD [39, 40]

Not reported [46]

0.7–0.9%* [40, 41]

Not reported [40, 47]

0.3% of sporadic PD [42],

4%–11.6% [43, 44]

Variants

reported

p.G2019S [38], p.N1437H [48]

Structural variants [11, 40, 47, 49, 50],

p.E79* [47],

p.K211N [11, 40, 47, 50],

p.R275W [40, 47],

p.Q34Rfs*5 [40, 47, 50],

p.Q44fsX48 [49],

p.P437L [47],

p.C446F [47, 50]

N/A

p.A168P [47],

p.Lys186Asn [40],

p.I368N [40, 47, 51],

p.G411S [41, 47],

p.Q456X [47, 52],

p.Ser535Leu [40]

N/A

p.A18T [42],

pA29S [42],

Duplication [11]

T369M [43],

N370S [43],

p.N409S [44],

p.L483P [44]

Clinical implications: genetic testing in clinical settings

Genetic testing in clinical settings may include targeted, multigene, whole exome sequencing (WES), or whole genome sequencing (WGS) [4, 57]. Targeted analysis, in which a single gene or a few variants within it are tested, has currently limited utility due to other diagnostic methods providing more comprehensive genetic information. However, in light of the low cost per sample, it is still useful in highly selected patients suspected of particular genetic variants, e.g. in PD patients with a strong positive family history of a monogenic variant. Multigene panels, sequencing several genes associated with PD using next-generation sequencing (NGS), currently present the optimal benefit-to-cost ratio and are the first choice for genetic testing in clinical settings [4, 57]. In a recent survey of available multigene panels for PD from the United States (n = 7) and Europe (n = 4), the authors noted significant differences in terms of the number of included genes, which ranged from 5 to 62 [4]. However, all of them included the most important familial PD genes, i.e. SNCA, PRKN, PINK1, DJ-1, and LRRK2, whereas the inclusion of VPS35 and GBA varied [4]. WES enables comprehensive testing of the whole protein coding genome using NGS and is being increasingly used in routine clinical practice, particularly as the second-tier testing in patients with negative results of multigene panels. Analysis of WES or WGS can still be targeted to a single variant, gene, or multigene panel but it potentially enables repeated analysis in future when novel pathogenic variants are identified, or extension to evaluate parts of the exome/genome that were not included in the original report. Of note, as multigene panels and WES use NGS, they may not detect copy number variants (CNV) (e.g. deletions, duplication, repeat expansions) [4, 57, 58]. Therefore, additional analysis of CNV is warranted, and it is not always stated by the laboratory whether such an analysis was performed, which could result in false negative results in carriers of familial PD forms due to structural variants, e.g. PRKN or SNCA [4].

Many patients have been detected as carrying variants of uncertain significance (VUS), which are genetic variations for which the association with disease risk is unclear [59]. As the databases with genetic variants and the medical literature are continually broadening, we suggest first searching the literature and checking the current status of the VUS [59]. Segregation studies (requiring clinical and sample testing of other family members) and in silico predictions may shed more light on the character of the VUS. However, functional studies in cellular and animal models remain the gold standard to determine the pathogenicity, or lack thereof [59].

Future directions

Genetic testing remains largely underemployed in clinical settings [60, 61]. Its high cost and perceived lack of impact on treatment decision-making are the main reasons for this [60, 61]. However, both these arguments are becoming relics of the past. The cost of gene sequencing has decreased dramatically over the last few years. The cost of whole genome sequencing fell from over $1 million in 2007 to less than $1,000 in 2019 [62]. Currently, it is quoted at c.$500, and it will most likely be under $100 in the near future [63]. Furthermore, several initiatives offer complimentary genetic testing and counselling for patients with PD, including PD GENEration by the Parkinson’s Foundation [64] and Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative by The Michael J. Fox Foundation [65]. A lack of medical ‘actionability’ is also no longer valid. Several interventional clinical trials dedicated to carriers of specific gene variants are already in progress (Tab. 3). They offer new types of potential treatment for selected patients, although, most likely, findings from these studies will also be translated to the sporadic form of PD.

Table 3. Active clinical trials for patients with Parkinson’s Disease who are carriers of LRRK2 or GBA mutations. Data collected from Clinicaltrials.gov as of 28 September, 2023

Genetic variant

Intervention

ClinicalTrials.gov ID

Administration route

Mechanism of action

Study phase

Status

Location

LRRK2

DNL151 (BIIB122)

NCT05348785

Oral

Inhibition of LRRK2

2

Active (recruiting)

Austria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom, United States

LRRK2

DNL151 (BIIB122)

NCT05418673

Oral

Inhibition of LRRK2

3

Active (not recruiting)

France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, United States

LRRK2

Trehalose

NCT05355064

Oral

Enhancement of autophagy

4

Active (not recruiting)

Not provided

LRRK2

BIIB094

NCT03976349

Intrathecal injection

Antisense oligonucleotide

1

Active (recruiting)

Canada, Israel, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom, United States

GBA

Ambroxol

NCT05287503

Oral

Enhancement of glucocerebrosidase activity

2

Active (not recruiting)

Italy

GBA

Ambroxol

NCT02914366

Oral

Enhancement of glucocerebrosidase activity

2

Active (not recruiting)

Canada

GBA

BIA-28-6156

NCT05819359

Oral

Enhancement of glucocerebrosidase activity

2

Active (recruiting)

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States

GBA

LY3884961

NCT04127578

Intra-cisterna magna

Gene therapy

1/2

Active (recruiting)

Israel, United States

GBA

Recombinant glucocerebrosidase

NCT05565443

Intracerebral (intravenous injections, followed by BBB disruption with MRgFUS)

Enhancement of glucocerebrosidase activity

1/2

Active (not recruiting)

Not provided

We speculate that the future treatment landscape for PD will be similar to that in oncological conditions such as breast cancer, in which the presence of certain gene mutations or gene overexpression determines the prognosis and treatment decision-making [66, 67]. Additionally, the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning will enable high-throughput analysis of large sets of multimodal data, including demographics, clinical, genomics (whole genome), transcriptomics, proteomics, and others [68].

Conclusions

Genetic testing remains largely underused in clinical settings. However, in light of the rapidly decreasing cost of genetic testing, and the emergence of the first potential therapies dedicated to carriers of specific gene mutations associated with PD, it is due time to reconsider attitudes toward the role of genetics in clinical settings. Clinicians should not be discouraged by VUSs, because with the growing amount of genetic data from PD patients, their significance will ultimately be resolved.

Finally, and hopefully, the widespread application of genetic testing will provide more insight into the pathophysiology of the disease, identify new potential therapeutic targets, and pave the way toward curative therapy in the future.

Article information

Authors’ contributions: JD: took lead in writing manuscript; OR and ZW:revised manuscript. All authors contributed to article and approved submitted version.
Funding: JD — grant from Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (BPN/WAL/2022/1/00007/U/00001), and Haworth Family Professorship in Neurodegenerative Diseases Fund.; OR — none; ZW — partly supported by NIH/NIA and NIH/NINDS (1U19AG063911, FAIN: U19AG063911), Mayo Clinic Centre for Regenerative Medicine, gifts from Donald G. and Jodi P. Heeringa Family, Haworth Family Professorship in Neurodegenerative Diseases Fund, The Albertson Parkinson’s Research Foundation, and PPND Family Foundation. He serves as PI or Co-PI on Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BHV4157-206) and Vigil Neuroscience, Inc. (VGL101-01.002, VGL101-01.201, PET tracer development protocol, Csf1r biomarker and repository project, and ultra-high field MRI in diagnosis and management of CSF1R-related adult-onset leukoencephalopathy with axonal spheroids and pigmented glia) projects/grants. He serves as Co-PI of Mayo Clinic APDA Centre for Advanced Research and as an external advisory board member for Vigil Neuroscience, Inc., and as a consultant on neurodegenerative medical research for Eli Lilli & Company
Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Polymeropoulos MH, Higgins JJ, Golbe LI, et al. Mapping of a gene for Parkinson’s disease to chromosome 4q21-q23. Science. 1996; 274(5290): 1197–1199, doi: 10.1126/science.274.5290.1197, indexed in Pubmed: 8895469.
  2. Polymeropoulos MH, Lavedan C, Leroy E, et al. Mutation in the alpha-synuclein gene identified in families with Parkinson’s disease. Science. 1997; 276(5321): 2045–2047, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5321.2045, indexed in Pubmed: 9197268.
  3. Dulski J, Uitti RJ, Ross OA, et al. Genetic architecture of Parkinson’s disease subtypes - Review of the literature. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022; 14: 1023574, doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.1023574, indexed in Pubmed: 36337703.
  4. Cook L, Schulze J, Verbrugge J, et al. ClinGen Parkinson’s Disease Gene Curation Expert Panel and the MDS Task Force for Recommendations for Genetic Testing in Parkinson’s Disease, Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Parkinson’s Disease Gene Curation Expert Panel Authors, Movement Society Disorder (MDS) Task Force on Recommendations for Clinical Genetic Testing in Parkinson’s Disease Authors. The commercial genetic testing landscape for Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2021; 92: 107–111, doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2021.10.001, indexed in Pubmed: 34696975.
  5. Balestrino R, Schapira AHV. Parkinson disease. Eur J Neurol. 2020; 27(1): 27–42, doi: 10.1111/ene.14108, indexed in Pubmed: 31631455.
  6. Hall A, Bandres-Ciga S, Diez-Fairen M, et al. Genetic Risk Profiling in Parkinson’s Disease and Utilizing Genetics to Gain Insight into Disease-Related Biological Pathways. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21(19), doi: 10.3390/ijms21197332, indexed in Pubmed: 33020390.
  7. Dulski J, Fujioka S, Wszolek ZK. Genetic parkinsonisms. In: Wolters E, Baumann C, Truong D. ed. IAPRD Textbook of Movement Disorders. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge forthcoming.
  8. Ali S, Wszolek ZK. LRRK2 R1441C mutation causing Parkinson’s Disease in an Egyptian family. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2022; 56(2): 191–192, doi: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2022.0008, indexed in Pubmed: 35029295.
  9. Saunders-Pullman R, Raymond D, Elango S. LRRK2 Parkinson Disease. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LJ, Gripp KW, Amemiya A. ed. GeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle 1993-2023.
  10. Stenson PD, Mort M, Ball EV, et al. The Human Gene Mutation Database: towards a comprehensive repository of inherited mutation data for medical research, genetic diagnosis and next-generation sequencing studies. Hum Genet. 2017; 136(6): 665–677, doi: 10.1007/s00439-017-1779-6, indexed in Pubmed: 28349240.
  11. Milanowski ŁM, Ross OA, Friedman A, et al. Genetics of Parkinson’s disease in the Polish population. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2021; 55(3): 241–252, doi: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2021.0013, indexed in Pubmed: 33539026.
  12. Brüggemann N, Klein C. Parkin Type of Early-Onset Parkinson Diseas. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LJ, Gripp KW, Amemiya A. ed. GeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle 1993-2023.
  13. Simon DK, Tanner CM, Brundin P. Parkinson Disease Epidemiology, Pathology, Genetics, and Pathophysiology. Clin Geriatr Med. 2020; 36(1): 1–12, doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2019.08.002, indexed in Pubmed: 31733690.
  14. Periquet M, Latouche M, Lohmann E, et al. French Parkinson’s Disease Genetics Study Group, European Consortium on Genetic Susceptibility in Parkinson’s Disease. Parkin mutations are frequent in patients with isolated early-onset parkinsonism. Brain. 2003; 126(Pt 6): 1271– –1278, doi: 10.1093/brain/awg136, indexed in Pubmed: 12764050.
  15. Yoshino H, Li Y, Nishioka K, et al. investigators of Japan Parkinson disease genetic study. Genotype-phenotype correlation of Parkinson’s disease with PRKN variants. Neurobiol Aging. 2022; 114: 117–128, doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.12.014, indexed in Pubmed: 35123805.
  16. Dulski J, Ross OA, Wszolek ZK. VPS35-Related Parkinson Disease. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LH, Gripp KW, Amemiya A. ed. GeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle 1993-2023.
  17. Schneider SA, Klein C. PINK1 Type of Young-Onset Parkinson. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LJ, Gripp KW, Amemiya A. ed. DiseaseGeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle 1993-2023.
  18. Book A, Guella I, Candido T, et al. SNCA Multiplication Investigators of the GEoPD Consortium. A Meta-Analysis of α-Synuclein Multiplication in Familial Parkinsonism. Front Neurol. 2018; 9: 1021, doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01021, indexed in Pubmed: 30619023.
  19. Edvardson S, Cinnamon Y, Ta-Shma A, et al. A deleterious mutation in DNAJC6 encoding the neuronal-specific clathrin-uncoating co-chaperone auxilin, is associated with juvenile parkinsonism. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5): e36458, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036458, indexed in Pubmed: 22563501.
  20. Kurian MA, Abela L. DNAJC6 Parkinson Disease. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LJ, Gripp KW, Amemiya A. ed. GeneReviews(®). University of Washington, Seattle 1993-2023.
  21. Fernández-Santiago R, Sharma M. What have we learned from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in Parkinson’s disease? Ageing Res Rev. 2022; 79: 101648, doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101648, indexed in Pubmed: 35595184.
  22. Senkevich K, Rudakou U, Gan-Or Z. Genetic mechanism vs genetic subtypes: The example of GBA. Handb Clin Neurol. 2023; 193: 155–170, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-85555-6.00016-3, indexed in Pubmed: 36803808.
  23. Vieira SRL, Schapira AHV. Glucocerebrosidase mutations and Parkinson disease. J Neural Transm. 2022; 129: 1105–1117, doi: 10.1007/s00702-022-02531-3.
  24. Höglinger G, Schulte C, Jost WH, et al. GBA-associated PD: chances and obstacles for targeted treatment strategies. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2022; 129(9): 1219–1233, doi: 10.1007/s00702-022-02511-7, indexed in Pubmed: 35639160.
  25. Nalls MA, Blauwendraat C, Vallerga CL, et al. 23andMe Research Team, System Genomics of Parkinson’s Disease Consortium, International Parkinson’s Disease Genomics Consortium. Identification of novel risk loci, causal insights, and heritable risk for Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Lancet Neurol. 2019; 18(12): 1091–1102, doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30320-5, indexed in Pubmed: 31701892.
  26. Blauwendraat C, Heilbron K, Vallerga CL, et al. 23andMe Research Team, International Parkinson’s Disease Genomics Consortium (IPDGC). Parkinson’s disease age at onset genome-wide association study: Defining heritability, genetic loci, and α-synuclein mechanisms. Mov Disord. 2019; 34(6): 866–875, doi: 10.1002/mds.27659, indexed in Pubmed: 30957308.
  27. Grover S, Kumar Sreelatha AA, Pihlstrom L, et al. and the Comprehensive Unbiased Risk Factor Assessment for Genetics and Environment in Parkinson’s Disease (COURAGE-PD) Consortium. Genome-wide Association and Meta-analysis of Age at Onset in Parkinson Disease: Evidence From the COURAGE-PD Consortium. Neurology. 2022; 99(7): e698–e710, doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200699, indexed in Pubmed: 35970579.
  28. Iwaki H, Blauwendraat C, Leonard HL, et al. International Parkinson’s Disease Genomics Consortium. Genomewide association study of Parkinson’s disease clinical biomarkers in 12 longitudinal patients’ cohorts. Mov Disord. 2019; 34(12): 1839–1850, doi: 10.1002/mds.27845, indexed in Pubmed: 31505070.
  29. Iwaki H, Blauwendraat C, Leonard HL, et al. Genetic risk of Parkinson disease and progression:: An analysis of 13 longitudinal cohorts. Neurol Genet. 2019; 5(4): e348, doi: 10.1212/NXG.0000000000000348, indexed in Pubmed: 31404238.
  30. Tan MMX, Lawton MA, Jabbari E, et al. Genome-Wide Association Studies of Cognitive and Motor Progression in Parkinson’s Disease. Mov Disord. 2021; 36(2): 424–433, doi: 10.1002/mds.28342, indexed in Pubmed: 33111402.
  31. König E, Nicoletti A, Pattaro C, et al. Exome-wide association study of levodopa-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 19582, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99393-8, indexed in Pubmed: 34599261.
  32. Liu G, Peng J, Liao Z, et al. International Genetics of Parkinson Disease Progression (IGPP) Consortium. Genome-wide survival study identifies a novel synaptic locus and polygenic score for cognitive progression in Parkinson’s disease. Nat Genet. 2021; 53(6): 787–793, doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00847-6, indexed in Pubmed: 33958783.
  33. Weintraub D, Posavi M, Fontanillas P, et al. 23andMe Research Team. Genetic prediction of impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2022; 9(7): 936–949, doi: 10.1002/acn3.51569, indexed in Pubmed: 35762106.
  34. Alfradique-Dunham I, Al-Ouran R, von Coelln R, et al. Genome-Wide Association Study Meta-Analysis for Parkinson Disease Motor Subtypes. Neurol Genet. 2021; 7(2): e557, doi: 10.1212/NXG.0000000000000557, indexed in Pubmed: 33987465.
  35. Visanji NP, Ghani M, Yu E, et al. Axial Impairment Following Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease: A Surgicogenomic Approach. J Parkinsons Dis. 2022; 12(1): 117–128, doi: 10.3233/JPD-212730, indexed in Pubmed: 34602499.
  36. Tam V, Patel N, Turcotte M, et al. Benefits and limitations of genome-wide association studies. Nat Rev Genet. 2019; 20(8): 467–484, doi: 10.1038/s41576-019-0127-1, indexed in Pubmed: 31068683.
  37. Bialecka M, Hui S, Klodowska-Duda G, et al. Analysis of LRRK 2 G 2019 S and I 2020 T mutations in Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Lett. 2005; 390(1): 1–3, doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.07.045, indexed in Pubmed: 16115731.
  38. Kachergus J, Mata IF, Hulihan M, et al. Identification of a novel LRRK2 mutation linked to autosomal dominant parkinsonism: evidence of a common founder across European populations. Am J Hum Genet. 2005; 76(4): 672–680, doi: 10.1086/429256, indexed in Pubmed: 15726496.
  39. Gaweda-Walerych K, Safranow K, Jasinska-Myga B, et al. PARK2 variability in Polish Parkinson’s disease patients-interaction with mitochondrial haplogroups. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2012; 18(5): 520–524, doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.01.021, indexed in Pubmed: 22361577.
  40. Koziorowski D, Hoffman-Zacharska D, Sławek J, et al. Incidence of mutations in the PARK2, PINK1, PARK7 genes in Polish early-onset Parkinson disease patients. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2013; 47(4): 319–324, doi: 10.5114/ninp.2013.36756, indexed in Pubmed: 23986421.
  41. Puschmann A, Fiesel FC, Caulfield TR, et al. Heterozygous PINK1 p.G411S increases risk of Parkinson’s disease via a dominant-negative mechanism. Brain. 2017; 140(1): 98–117, doi: 10.1093/brain/aww261, indexed in Pubmed: 27807026.
  42. Hoffman-Zacharska D, Koziorowski D, Ross OA, et al. Novel A18T and pA29S substitutions in α-synuclein may be associated with sporadic Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2013; 19(11): 1057–1060, doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.07.011, indexed in Pubmed: 23916651.
  43. Malec-Litwinowicz M, Plewka A, Plewka D, et al. The relation between plasma α-synuclein level and clinical symptoms or signs of Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2018; 52(2): 243–251, doi: 10.1016/j.pjnns.2017.11.009, indexed in Pubmed: 29342421.
  44. Jamrozik Z, Lugowska A, Kosiorowski D. Beta-Glucocerebrosidase Gene Mutations P.Asn409Ser and P.Leu483Pro in Polish Patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Journal of Neurology and Neuroscience. 2015; 06(04), doi: 10.21767/2171-6625.100054.
  45. Quirini-Popławska D. Polska azylem europejskich emigrantów na przełomie wieków średnich i nowożytnych. Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce. 1993; 37: 34–46.
  46. Vilariño-Güell C, Wider C, Ross OA, et al. VPS35 mutations in Parkinson disease. Am J Hum Genet. 2011; 89(1): 162–167, doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.06.001, indexed in Pubmed: 21763482.
  47. Milanowski ŁM, Lindemann JA, Hoffman-Zacharska D, et al. Frequency of mutations in PRKN, PINK1, and DJ1 in Patients With Early-Onset Parkinson Disease from neighboring countries in Central Europe. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2021; 86: 48–51, doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2021.03.026, indexed in Pubmed: 33845304.
  48. Turski P, Chaberska I, Szukało P, et al. Review of the epidemiology and variability of LRRK2 non-p.Gly2019Ser pathogenic mutations in Parkinson’s disease. Front Neurosci. 2022; 16: 971270, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.971270, indexed in Pubmed: 36203807.
  49. Koziorowski D, Hoffman-Zacharska D, Sławek J, et al. Low frequency of the PARK2 gene mutations in Polish patients with the early-onset form of Parkinson disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2010; 16(2): 136–138, doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2009.06.010, indexed in Pubmed: 19628420.
  50. Ambroziak W, Koziorowski D, Duszyc K, et al. Genomic instability in the PARK2 locus is associated with Parkinson’s disease. J Appl Genet. 2015; 56(4): 451–461, doi: 10.1007/s13353-015-0282-9, indexed in Pubmed: 25833766.
  51. Ando M, Fiesel FC, Hudec R, et al. The PINK1 p.I368N mutation affects protein stability and ubiquitin kinase activity. Mol Neurodegener. 2017; 12(1): 32, doi: 10.1186/s13024-017-0174-z, indexed in Pubmed: 28438176.
  52. Siuda J, Jasinska-Myga B, Boczarska-Jedynak M, et al. Early-onset Parkinson’s disease due to PINK1 p.Q456X mutation-clinical and functional study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2014; 20(11): 1274–1278, doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.08.019, indexed in Pubmed: 25226871.
  53. Kaja E, Lejman A, Sielski D, et al. The Thousand Polish Genomes-A Database of Polish Variant Allele Frequencies. Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(9), doi: 10.3390/ijms23094532, indexed in Pubmed: 35562925.
  54. Tipton PW, Bülbül N, Crook J, et al. Effects of sex and APOE on Parkinson’s Disease-related cognitive decline. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2021; 55(6): 559–566, doi: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2021.0071, indexed in Pubmed: 34642926.
  55. Pal G, Mangone G, Hill EJ, et al. Parkinson Disease and Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation: Cognitive Effects in GBA Mutation Carriers. Ann Neurol. 2022; 91(3): 424–435, doi: 10.1002/ana.26302, indexed in Pubmed: 34984729.
  56. Avenali M, Zangaglia R, Cuconato G, et al. PARKNET Study Group. Are patients with GBA-Parkinson disease good candidates for deep brain stimulation? A longitudinal multicentric study on a large Italian cohort. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2023 [Epub ahead of print], doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-332387, indexed in Pubmed: 37879897.
  57. Cook L, Schulze J, Naito A, et al. The Role of Genetic Testing for Parkinson’s Disease. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2021; 21(4): 17, doi: 10.1007/s11910-021-01100-7, indexed in Pubmed: 33686495.
  58. Radziwonik W, Elert-Dobkowska E, Tomczuk F, et al. C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion found in suspected spinobulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA). Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2022; 56(3): 276–280, doi: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2022.0039, indexed in Pubmed: 35661131.
  59. Wszolek Z. When is it useful to genotype Parkinson’s disease patients? Henry Stewart Talks 2023.
  60. Kovanda A, Rački V, Bergant G, et al. A multicenter study of genetic testing for Parkinson’s disease in the clinical setting. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2022; 8(1): 149, doi: 10.1038/s41531-022-00408-6, indexed in Pubmed: 36333361.
  61. Alcalay RN, Kehoe C, Shorr E, et al. Genetic testing for Parkinson disease: current practice, knowledge, and attitudes among US and Canadian movement disorders specialists. Genet Med. 2020; 22(3): 574–580, doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0684-x, indexed in Pubmed: 31680121.
  62. Wetterstrand KA. The Cost of Sequencing a Human Genome. National Human Genome Research Institute. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Sequencing-Human-Genome-cost (٢٣.٢٢.٢٠٢٣).
  63. Pennisi E. Upstart DNA sequencers could be a ‘game changer’. Science. 2022; 376(6599): 1257–1258, doi: 10.1126/science.add4867, indexed in Pubmed: 35709273.
  64. PPD GENEration: Mapping the Future of Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinson’s Foundation. https://www.parkinson.org/advancing-research/our-research/pdgeneration (٢٣.١١.٢٠٢٣).
  65. Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. The Michael J. Fox Foundation. https://www.michaeljfox.org/news/parkinsons-progression-markers-initiative (٢٣.١١.٢٠٢٣).
  66. Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30(10): 1674, doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz189, indexed in Pubmed: 31236598.
  67. Gennari A, André F, Barrios CH, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021; 32(12): 1475–1495, doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.019, indexed in Pubmed: 34678411.
  68. Makarious MB, Leonard HL, Vitale D, et al. Multi-modality machine learning predicting Parkinson’s disease. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2022; 8(1): 35, doi: 10.1038/s41531-022-00288-w, indexed in Pubmed: 35365675.