Parkinson Disease

Parkinson disease (PD) is a chronic and progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the gradual loss of dopamine-producing neurons, primarily in the substantia nigra region of the brain. This neuronal degeneration leads to a range of motor symptoms, including tremors, rigidity, bradykinesia (slowness of movement), and postural instability, as well as various non-motor symptoms such as cognitive changes, sleep disturbances, and mood disorders. PD significantly impacts an individual’s quality of life, making research into its causes and potential treatments a critical area of study.

The biological basis of Parkinson disease is complex, involving both genetic predispositions and environmental factors. Genetic research has identified several genes and genomic regions that influence an individual’s susceptibility to PD and, notably, the age at which symptoms begin. For example, mutations in genes such asPARK1 are associated with an earlier onset compared to idiopathic PD, while PARK2(parkin) mutations are linked to a recessive form of the disease that often manifests before the age of 40^[1]. Even carrying a single copy of a mutated parkin gene (heterozygosity) has been associated with an earlier onset of PD, typically in the early to mid-sixth decade ^[2]. In contrast, mutations in LRRK2 (also known as PARK8) often lead to an age of onset distribution similar to that seen in idiopathic PD, demonstrating clear age-dependent penetrance ^[1]. Other genetic loci, such as PARK3, have also been shown to influence the age of onset in PD ^[3]. Furthermore, genetic variations within the SNCAgene, which codes for alpha-synuclein, can affect the levels of this protein in both the blood and brain^[4]. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been widely employed to systematically identify these genetic risk variants and explore their impact on disease characteristics^[1].

Clinically, age is one of the most prominent risk factors for Parkinson disease, and the expression of the disease is strongly linked to age-related penetrance^[1]. The presence of Lewy bodies, which are abnormal protein aggregates found in the brains of affected individuals, is a key pathological feature relevant to the pathogenesis of idiopathic Parkinson disease^[5]. The significant variability in the age of disease onset and progression among patients underscores the importance of identifying and understanding these genetic modifiers for more accurate prognostication and personalized treatment approaches. Studies have also observed a correlation in the age of onset among siblings with PD, suggesting a strong influence of shared genetic factors^[1].

The social importance of addressing Parkinson disease is immense, given its profound impact on millions worldwide. The progressive nature of PD often leads to increasing disability, affecting independence and overall well-being, and places a significant burden on caregivers and healthcare systems. Ongoing large-scale genetic investigations, including multi-center collaborations and extensive genome-wide association studies, are crucial for unraveling the complex genetic architecture of PD^[1]. A deeper understanding of these genetic underpinnings and the biological pathways involved is essential for developing novel diagnostic tools, identifying individuals at higher risk, and ultimately devising effective therapies that can halt, slow, or even prevent the onset of this debilitating condition.

Limitations

Methodological and Statistical Constraints

While genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for Parkinson disease have leveraged large sample sizes and meta-analysis techniques to bolster statistical power, the comprehensive identification of all genetic associations remains an ongoing challenge. Even with substantial cohorts, the absence of a prominent association signal does not definitively rule out a gene’s involvement, particularly for effects that are subtle or rare^[6]. Consequently, replication studies are indispensable for confirming initial findings and distinguishing true genetic associations from potential false positives, as many preliminary signals necessitate independent validation ^[6].

Current genotyping platforms can present limitations due to less-than-complete coverage of common genetic variations and often have reduced power to detect rare variants, including structural variations, which can hinder the discovery of rare but impactful alleles ^[6]. Furthermore, the statistical models commonly employed, such as additive genetic models, may not fully capture the complexity of genetic architectures, potentially overlooking recessive causal alleles or more intricate gene interactions ^[7]. This combination of incomplete genomic coverage and simplified modeling implies that a substantial portion of genetic susceptibility effects for Parkinson disease may still be undiscovered, pointing to enduring knowledge gaps in our understanding^[6].

Phenotypic Heterogeneity and Generalizability

The precise definition of Parkinson disease phenotypes, such as the age of onset, can introduce variability into genetic analyses, as different studies may apply slightly varied criteria for classifying cases^[1]. Many research efforts, especially those focused on familial forms of the disease, often derive cohorts from affected sibling pairs or nuclear families with multiple affected individuals^[8]. While this ascertainment strategy is valuable for uncovering highly penetrant genetic factors, it can introduce a cohort bias that complicates the direct generalization of findings to the broader sporadic Parkinson disease population^[7].

Genetic associations can also be influenced by underlying population structure, where variations in allele frequencies across different ancestral groups might confound results if not properly addressed ^[6]. Although some studies may determine that population structure has only a minor confounding effect within their specific cohorts, the overall generalizability of findings across diverse ancestries remains a critical consideration ^[6]. Therefore, results from predominantly studied populations require careful interpretation when extrapolated to other ethnic groups, as genetic risk factors and their associated effect sizes may differ significantly ^[6].

The genetic landscape of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is complex, involving numerous genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that contribute to an individual’s susceptibility and disease progression. These variants can influence a wide array of biological processes, from protein aggregation and mitochondrial function to lysosomal activity and epigenetic regulation, all of which are implicated in the neurodegenerative pathology of PD.

The SNCAgene, encoding alpha-synuclein, is a cornerstone in Parkinson’s disease pathology, as its protein product is the primary component of Lewy bodies, the characteristic protein aggregates found in the brains of PD patients. Variants withinSNCA, such as rs356182 , rs356203 , rs356219 , rs1372518 , rs1372519 , and rs3775458 , are associated with an increased risk of PD, often by influencing the levels or propensity of alpha-synuclein to aggregate^[9]. Specifically, genetic variability in the 3′ region of the SNCA gene, including rs356219 , has been shown to affect alpha-synuclein mRNA levels in brain regions like the substantia nigra and cerebellum^[4]. These genetic influences on alpha-synuclein expression and aggregation are crucial to understanding the mechanisms underlying neuronal dysfunction and death in PD.

Another significant contributor to genetic Parkinson’s disease is theLRRK2gene, which codes for Leucine-rich repeat kinase 2, a large protein involved in various cellular processes including vesicle trafficking, autophagy, and neurite outgrowth. Mutations inLRRK2, such as rs34637584 and rs34778348 , are recognized as a common cause of autosomal-dominant parkinsonism, often leading to a wide range of pathological features ^[10]. These variants can alter LRRK2 kinase activity, leading to impaired cellular function and increased neuronal vulnerability. Similarly, mutations in the GBA1gene, which encodes the lysosomal enzyme glucocerebrosidase, are the most common genetic risk factor for Parkinson’s disease. Variants likers76763715 , rs2230288 , and rs3115534 can reduce glucocerebrosidase activity, leading to the accumulation of specific lipids and alpha-synuclein, thereby linking lysosomal dysfunction to PD pathogenesis and often resulting in earlier disease onset.

Beyond these major genes, other variants contribute to PD risk through diverse mechanisms. The MAPTgene, encoding microtubule-associated protein tau, is primarily known for its role in Alzheimer’s disease and other tauopathies, where its aggregation forms neurofibrillary tangles. However, specific haplotypes and variants, includingrs17649553 , are also associated with an increased risk of PD, suggesting an overlap in the pathological processes involving tau and alpha-synuclein^[11]. The TMEM175 gene, with variants like rs34311866 , rs34884217 , and rs6599388 , also plays a role in lysosomal function, particularly in maintaining lysosomal pH and integrity, and its dysfunction can impair the cellular waste disposal system, contributing to the accumulation of toxic proteins in PD.

Further genetic contributions come from regions involving genes such as HMGN2P18, KRTCAP2, LINC02210-CRHR1, and ASH1L. HMGN2P18 is a pseudogene, and its variants, including rs35682329 , rs35749011 , rs10908458 , and rs12028043 (which are also associated with KRTCAP2), might influence gene regulation or chromatin structure, indirectly affecting neuronal health. LINC02210-CRHR1involves a long intergenic non-coding RNA and the corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor 1. Variants likers62053943 , rs117615688 , and rs9912362 in this region could impact stress response pathways and neuroinflammation, factors increasingly recognized in neurodegenerative diseases. Lastly, ASH1L (Ash1 Like Histone Lysine Methyltransferase), with variants such as rs12734374 , rs116540837 , and rs145330152 , is involved in epigenetic regulation, potentially altering gene expression patterns critical for neuronal survival and function, thereby contributing to the complex etiology of Parkinson’s disease.

Classification, Definition, and Terminology

Defining Parkinson Disease and its Core Clinical Features

Parkinson disease (PD) is primarily defined by the presence of at least two out of four cardinal motor signs of parkinsonism: rest tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia (slowness of movement), and/or postural instability^[12]. This clinical diagnosis mandates the absence of atypical features, such as unexplained upper motor neuron signs or cerebellar signs, which would indicate other neurological conditions ^[12]. The term “idiopathic PD” specifically refers to the most common form of the disease where the underlying cause is not yet identified^[1]. While motor symptoms are central, non-motor manifestations, including dysautonomia or dementia, may also be present, typically appearing mildly and later in the disease progression^[12].

Classification and Genetic Subtypes

Parkinson disease is classified into various forms, encompassing both idiopathic and distinct genetic subtypes, each characterized by specific clinical features and ages of onset. “Parkinsonism” serves as a broader clinical term describing a syndrome of motor symptoms, with PD being the most prevalent underlying cause^[12]. Genetic forms of Parkinson disease are linked to specific gene loci, such as PARK1, PARK2 (which encodes the parkin protein), and LRRK2 (also known as PARK8)^[1]. For instance, PARK2 is associated with a recessive form of young-onset PD, often manifesting before age 40, though heterozygous parkin mutations can also contribute to an earlier onset, typically in the early to mid-sixth decade ^[1]. In contrast, PD linked to LRRK2 mutations often exhibits an age of onset distribution similar to that observed in idiopathic PD, displaying clear age-dependent penetrance ^[1]. A key pathological feature relevant to the pathogenesis of idiopathic Parkinson disease is the presence of Lewy bodies^[5].

Diagnostic and Measurement Criteria

The diagnosis of Parkinson disease relies heavily on clinical observation of characteristic motor signs, coupled with stringent exclusion criteria to differentiate it from secondary causes of parkinsonism, such as a history of neuroleptic exposure, encephalitis, or multiple strokes^[12]. A significant and demonstrable improvement in motor symptoms in response to levodopa treatment, such as a daily dosage of at least 1 gram in combination with carbidopa, further supports the diagnosis by indicating dopaminergic responsiveness ^[12]. The age of disease onset is a crucial measurement criterion in PD, with average onset ages showing variation across different studies and genetic subtypes^[11]. Notably, age itself is recognized as one of the strongest risk factors for Parkinson disease, and genetic factors are known to significantly influence the age at which symptoms begin^[1].

Signs and Symptoms

Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a complex array of motor and non-motor symptoms, exhibiting significant variability in presentation and progression. Accurate diagnosis relies on a careful assessment of these clinical manifestations, often supported by therapeutic response and the exclusion of other conditions.

Motor and Non-Motor Manifestations

The clinical presentation of Parkinson’s disease is primarily defined by the presence of at least two of four cardinal motor signs: rest tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, and/or postural instability^[12]. These motor symptoms are key diagnostic criteria, and their identification is crucial for establishing a diagnosis of parkinsonism. Beyond motor dysfunction, individuals with Parkinson’s disease may also experience non-motor manifestations, such as dysautonomia or dementia, which typically present as mild symptoms and emerge later in the disease course^[12]. The presence and severity of these non-motor symptoms, and their timing in relation to motor symptoms, can provide important clues for differential diagnosis and prognostic assessment.

A significant diagnostic indicator for Parkinson’s disease is the therapeutic response to levodopa; patients showing more than a minimal improvement when treated with a daily dosage of less than 1 gram of levodopa (in combination with carbidopa) are often considered to have idiopathic Parkinson’s disease^[12]. While specific measurement scales are not detailed, clinical observation and evaluation of these motor and non-motor signs are fundamental assessment methods. The relatively late and mild appearance of non-motor symptoms helps distinguish typical Parkinson’s disease from atypical parkinsonian syndromes, where these symptoms might be more prominent or appear earlier.

Phenotypic Diversity and Age of Onset

Parkinson’s disease exhibits substantial heterogeneity, particularly regarding the age of onset, which is influenced by both genetic factors and age itself as a major risk factor^[1]. Genetic forms of the disease demonstrate distinct age-of-onset patterns; for instance, PARK1 is associated with a younger onset compared to idiopathic Parkinson’s disease, and PARK2 (parkin) is a recessive form commonly presenting before age 40^[1]. Conversely, heterozygous mutations in the parkin gene are linked to an earlier onset, typically in the early to mid-sixth decade, while Parkinson’s disease associated with LRRK2 mutations presents an onset distribution very similar to that seen in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease, showing clear age-dependent penetrance^[2].

This inter-individual variation and phenotypic diversity, where onset age can be correlated between siblings, suggest the strong influence of genetic modifiers on disease expression and progression . Similarly,PARK2(encoding parkin) is linked to a recessive form of the disease typically manifesting before age 40^[13]. However, heterozygous mutations in parkin can also lead to an earlier onset of the disease, often in the early to mid-sixth decade^[1].

Another key gene, LRRK2 (also known as PARK8), is responsible for an autosomal dominant form of Parkinson disease that presents with an age of onset distribution similar to idiopathic Parkinson disease, exhibiting clear age-dependent penetrance^[1], ^[10]. Beyond these specific mutations, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified various susceptibility loci contributing to familial and sporadic Parkinson disease^[12], ^{[7] [2009]}. Genetic factors also influence disease progression, with studies indicating that genetic modifiers impact the age of onset, showing stronger evidence for “major genes” influencing onset age or penetrance rather than just overall susceptibility^[1], ^[3], ^{[7] [2004]}, ^[14]. The ubiquitin pathway has also been implicated, alongside the influence of the SNCAgene (encoding alpha-synuclein) on its levels in the brain and blood, and functional associations of the parkin gene promoter with idiopathic Parkinson disease^[15], ^[4], ^[9], ^[16].

Age-Related Factors

Age stands out as one of the most potent risk factors for Parkinson disease, with its influence extending to both disease susceptibility and expression^[1]. The strong association between age-related penetrance and disease manifestation suggests that the aging process itself plays a crucial role in the development of the condition^[1]. This is particularly evident in genetic forms of the disease, such as those caused byLRRK2 mutations, where the penetrance of the mutation is clearly dependent on age ^[1].

The cumulative effects of aging may interact with underlying genetic vulnerabilities, contributing to the progressive neurodegeneration characteristic of Parkinson disease. Cellular processes, such as the activation of the unfolded protein response, have been observed in Parkinson disease, which can be linked to cellular stress and age-related decline^[17]. The increasing likelihood of disease onset with advancing age highlights the importance of understanding the biological changes that occur as individuals age and how these changes interact with genetic predispositions.

Other Influences and Interactions

Beyond core genetic and age-related factors, certain medical histories and lifestyle aspects may contribute to the risk of Parkinson disease. Studies have explored the potential association between hysterectomy, menopause, and estrogen use preceding the diagnosis of Parkinson disease^[18]. While the precise mechanisms are still under investigation, these factors suggest a role for hormonal influences or surgical interventions in the disease’s etiology.

Furthermore, the interplay between genetic predispositions and broader environmental or developmental influences is increasingly recognized. Although specific gene-environment interactions are not comprehensively detailed in all studies, the observation that genetic modifiers influence the age of onset, and that onset age is correlated between siblings with Parkinson disease, highlights the complex interaction between inherited factors and other lifelong exposures or biological processes^[1], ^{[7] [2002]}. This suggests a multifactorial etiology where a combination of inherited susceptibility and other contributing factors shapes an individual’s overall risk and disease trajectory.

Biological Background

Parkinson disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor symptoms such as tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, and postural instability, resulting from the loss of dopaminergic neurons in specific brain regions. The biological basis of Parkinson disease involves a complex interplay of genetic factors, protein mishandling, cellular dysfunction, and environmental influences, leading to the characteristic pathology observed in affected individuals^[19]. Understanding these mechanisms at molecular, cellular, and tissue levels is crucial for elucidating disease pathogenesis and developing therapeutic strategies.

Pathological Hallmarks and Protein Homeostasis

A defining pathological feature of Parkinson disease is the presence of Lewy bodies, which are abnormal protein aggregates found within the neurons of affected individuals^[5]. These inclusions signify a significant disruption in the cell’s ability to manage and process proteins effectively, a process known as protein homeostasis. Investigations into brain regions affected by Parkinson disease reveal transcriptional changes that indicate problems with specific protein processing and energy metabolism^[20]. Furthermore, an activation of the unfolded protein response (UPR), a cellular stress pathway triggered by an accumulation of misfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum, has been observed in Parkinson disease^[17]. Alongside this, the ubiquitin pathway, a critical cellular system responsible for tagging and degrading damaged or misfolded proteins, is implicated in the disease, suggesting a failure in protein clearance mechanisms^[15].

Genetic Contributions and Modifiers of Disease Onset

Genetic factors play a significant role in the etiology and progression of Parkinson disease, with several genes identified that influence susceptibility and age of onset. Mutations in genes such asPARK2 (encoding parkin) are associated with autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism, typically presenting before age 40, while heterozygous parkin mutations can lead to an earlier onset in the early to mid-sixth decade ^[13]. Another key gene, LRRK2 (also known as PARK8), is linked to autosomal-dominant forms of parkinsonism that exhibit pleomorphic pathology and an age-dependent penetrance, with an onset distribution similar to idiopathic Parkinson disease^[1]. Beyond these, PARK3has been identified through genome scans as a gene influencing the age of onset in Parkinson disease, and further studies have replicated this finding and suggested additional novel loci that modify onset age^[3]. While segregation analyses highlight the influence of “major genes” on onset age and penetrance, whole-genome association studies are continually identifying susceptibility genes and genetic modifiers that contribute to both familial and idiopathic forms of the disease^[1].

Cellular Energetics and Neuronal Vulnerability

Disruptions in cellular energy metabolism are central to the pathogenesis of Parkinson disease, impacting the survival and function of vulnerable neuronal populations. Transcriptional analyses across multiple brain regions in individuals with Parkinson disease reveal significant alterations in metabolic processes, indicating a widespread energy deficit^[20]. This metabolic stress, coupled with impaired protein processing, renders specific neurons, particularly dopaminergic neurons, highly susceptible to degeneration ^[21]. Research has shown that factors like vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) can exert neuroprotective effects on these critical dopaminergic neurons in models of Parkinson disease, underscoring the potential for interventions that support cellular resilience and energy production^[21]. The intricate balance of protein handling and energy generation is crucial for maintaining neuronal health, and its disruption is a key driver of disease progression.

Tissue-Level Pathology and Systemic Implications

The pathology of Parkinson disease extends beyond specific cellular dysfunctions to affect multiple brain regions, leading to a complex array of neurological symptoms. While specific genetic mutations, such as those inLRRK2, can lead to parkinsonism with diverse tissue pathology, the overall disease involves widespread changes across the nervous system^[10]. Age is a paramount risk factor for Parkinson disease, with age-related penetrance strongly correlating with disease expression, highlighting how systemic aging processes contribute to neuronal vulnerability^[1]. Although some studies have found no evidence for heritability of Parkinson disease in specific populations, the observed familial aggregation and genetic influences on onset age underscore a complex interplay between genetic predisposition and age-related physiological changes^[22]. This intricate interaction results in the progressive neurodegeneration that characterizes Parkinson disease, impacting motor control and a range of non-motor functions.

Pathways and Mechanisms

Parkinson’s disease is a complex neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the progressive loss of dopaminergic neurons, driven by a confluence of genetic predispositions, cellular stress, and metabolic dysregulation. The underlying mechanisms involve intricate molecular pathways and their interactions, leading to the observed pathology.

Genetic Predisposition and Age-Dependent Modifiers

The pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease is significantly influenced by genetic factors, with several genes identified that modify disease risk and age of onset^[1]. For instance, mutations in leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2 or PARK8) are associated with a distribution of onset age similar to idiopathic Parkinson’s, demonstrating age-dependent penetrance^[1]. Conversely, recessive mutations in the parkingene (PARK2) typically lead to an earlier onset of the disease, often before the age of 40, while heterozygousparkin mutations can also accelerate onset, generally presenting in the early to mid-sixth decade ^[1].

The PARK3 locus has also been identified as a genetic modifier that influences the age at which symptoms begin ^[1]. These genetic predispositions highlight how specific gene variants can alter disease trajectory, with age being a critical factor that strongly correlates with Parkinson’s disease risk and expression, suggesting complex gene-environment or gene-age interactions^[1]. Segregation analyses further support the presence of “major genes” that primarily influence age of onset or penetrance rather than just overall susceptibility ^[1].

Protein Homeostasis and Stress Responses

A critical mechanism implicated in the cellular pathology of Parkinson’s disease involves the dysregulation of protein processing and the activation of cellular stress responses. Research indicates that the unfolded protein response (UPR), a complex signaling pathway initiated by an accumulation of misfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum, is activated in Parkinson’s disease^[17]. This activation signifies a cellular attempt to restore proteostasis by upregulating chaperone proteins and inhibiting general protein synthesis, but its chronic engagement can contribute to neuronal dysfunction and death.

The involvement of specific protein processing pathways suggests a broader disruption of protein quality control mechanisms in affected brain regions ^[1]. Such mechanisms are vital for maintaining cellular health by ensuring proteins are correctly folded, modified, and degraded when necessary. Their impairment can lead to the aggregation of pathogenic proteins, which is a hallmark of many neurodegenerative conditions, further overwhelming cellular clearance systems and exacerbating cellular stress.

Metabolic Dysregulation

Beyond protein handling, the cellular metabolic landscape, particularly energy metabolism, plays a significant role in Parkinson’s disease pathogenesis^[1]. Transcriptional analyses of various brain regions affected by the disease support the involvement of altered energy metabolism pathways^[1]. These metabolic disturbances can impair mitochondrial function, reduce ATP production, and compromise the energy-intensive processes required for neuronal survival and neurotransmission, thereby contributing to the progressive degeneration of dopaminergic neurons.

This dysregulation in energy metabolism affects critical cellular processes, including ion pump activity, synaptic transmission, and the maintenance of cellular integrity. The inability to meet the high energy demands of neurons can lead to oxidative stress and excitotoxicity, creating a vicious cycle that further damages cellular components and accelerates neurodegeneration.

Interconnected Regulatory Networks

The pathology of Parkinson’s disease arises from a complex interplay of genetic, proteostatic, and metabolic pathways, forming an interconnected regulatory network. Genetic modifiers, such as PARK3, influence the age-dependent penetrance of the disease, suggesting hierarchical regulation where genetic background modulates the expression and severity of other pathogenic processes^[3]. This complex network dictates how initial insults, whether genetic mutations or environmental stressors, propagate through cellular systems, leading to the emergent properties observed in the disease, such as progressive dopaminergic neuron loss.

The activation of the unfolded protein response and the disruption of energy metabolism are not isolated events but are likely intertwined with genetic predispositions, creating a feedback loop where cellular stress exacerbates metabolic deficiencies, and vice versa. Understanding these pathway crosstalks and network interactions is crucial for identifying key nodes of dysregulation and developing comprehensive therapeutic strategies that target multiple facets of the disease, moving beyond single-target interventions.

Key Variants

RS ID	Gene	Related Traits
rs356182 rs356203 rs356219	SNCA	parkinson disease educational attainment
rs34637584 rs34778348	LRRK2	parkinson disease
rs76763715 rs2230288 rs3115534	GBA1	parkinson disease REM sleep behavior disorder protein measurement
rs1372518 rs1372519 rs3775458	SNCA	Lewy body dementia blood protein amount parkinson disease
rs35682329	HMGN2P18	dementia parkinson disease
rs34311866 rs34884217 rs6599388	TMEM175	BMI-adjusted waist-hip ratio parkinson disease high density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement triglyceride measurement alcohol consumption quality, high density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement
rs35749011 rs10908458 rs12028043	HMGN2P18 - KRTCAP2	Lewy body dementia parkinson disease
rs62053943 rs117615688 rs9912362	LINC02210-CRHR1	BMI-adjusted waist circumference cortical thickness white matter microstructure measurement parkinson disease neuroticism measurement
rs17649553	MAPT	parkinson disease
rs12734374 rs116540837 rs145330152	ASH1L	Lewy body dementia erythrocyte count hemoglobin measurement parkinson disease

Frequently Asked Questions About Parkinson Disease

These questions address the most important and specific aspects of parkinson disease based on current genetic research.

---

1. My dad got Parkinson’s young. Will I get it early too?

It’s possible you could have a higher risk for earlier onset Parkinson’s, yes. Some genetic mutations, like those in the PARK1 gene or certain parkin (PARK2) mutations, are known to cause the disease to start at a younger age. Even carrying just one copy of a mutatedparkin gene can lead to an earlier onset, often in your early to mid-sixties. Your family history is a key indicator, and shared genetic factors among family members are known to influence when symptoms might appear.

2. Why do some people get Parkinson’s so much younger than others?

The age when Parkinson’s starts varies a lot, and genetics plays a big role in this difference. Mutations in genes like PARK1 can cause very early onset. Other genes, such as parkin (PARK2), are linked to a form that often appears before age 40. In contrast, mutations in the LRRK2gene might lead to an age of onset similar to the more common, non-genetic forms, showing how different genes impact the disease timeline.

3. Is a genetic test useful if Parkinson’s runs in my family?

Yes, a genetic test can be quite useful. Knowing your specific genetic profile can help identify if you carry variations that increase your susceptibility or influence the potential age of onset for Parkinson’s. This information is crucial for understanding your personal risk and can contribute to more accurate prognostication and potentially personalized management approaches in the future.

4. If I have a ‘Parkinson’s gene,’ does it mean I’ll definitely get it?

Not necessarily. While certain genetic variations increase your risk or susceptibility to Parkinson’s, having a “Parkinson’s gene” doesn’t always guarantee you’ll develop the disease. The expression of the disease is strongly linked to age-related penetrance, meaning it might only manifest later in life, or not at all, depending on the specific gene and other factors. It’s about increased risk, not always a definite outcome.

5. My sibling has Parkinson’s, but I’m fine. Why the difference?

Even within families, there can be significant variability in who develops Parkinson’s and when. While shared genetic factors do strongly influence the age of onset among siblings, you and your sibling might have inherited different combinations of risk genes, or other genetic and environmental factors could be at play. The disease’s expression is complex, and not everyone with a genetic predisposition will develop it.

6. I’m getting older, does that mean my Parkinson’s risk goes up?

Yes, age is actually one of the most significant risk factors for Parkinson’s disease. The older you get, the higher your risk. The way the disease manifests, or its “penetrance,” is very strongly tied to age, meaning the likelihood of developing symptoms increases considerably as you advance in years, regardless of your genetic background.

7. My doctor mentioned genetic ‘risk.’ What does that actually mean for me?

When your doctor mentions genetic “risk,” it means that variations in your genes might make you more susceptible to developing Parkinson’s disease compared to the general population. This doesn’t mean you will definitely get it, but your genetic makeup could increase your chances or influence when symptoms might appear. Research into these genetic predispositions helps us understand who might be at higher risk.

8. Can my genes affect how old I am when Parkinson’s might start?

Absolutely. Your genes significantly influence the age at which Parkinson’s symptoms might begin. For example, mutations in genes like PARK1 or parkin (PARK2) are associated with earlier onset, sometimes even before age 40, while variations in other genes like LRRK2 or PARK3can also modify when the disease starts, sometimes leading to onset similar to what’s seen in the general population.

9. Is my Parkinson’s due to my genes, or just bad luck?

Parkinson’s disease is complex, involving both genetic predispositions and environmental factors. For some people, specific genetic mutations are a clear cause, while for many others, it’s considered “idiopathic,” meaning the exact cause isn’t known, often a mix of subtle genetic risks and environmental influences. So, it’s rarely just “bad luck” or purely genetic, but often a combination.

10. Can my body’s own proteins cause Parkinson’s symptoms?

Yes, abnormal proteins in your brain are a key feature of Parkinson’s. A protein called alpha-synuclein, coded by theSNCAgene, can form abnormal clumps called Lewy bodies in the brain. These aggregates are strongly linked to the degeneration of dopamine-producing neurons and are a hallmark of the disease, contributing directly to the motor and non-motor symptoms you experience.

---

This FAQ was automatically generated based on current genetic research and may be updated as new information becomes available.

Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a healthcare provider for personalized medical guidance.

References

[1] Latourelle, J. C., et al. “Genomewide association study for onset age in Parkinson disease.”BMC Med Genet, vol. 10, 2009, p. 98.

[2] Foroud, Tatiana, et al. “Heterozygosity for a mutation in the parkin gene leads to later onset Parkinson disease.”Neurology, vol. 60, no. 5, 2003, pp. 796–801.

[3] DeStefano, A. L., et al. “PARK3 influences age at onset in Parkinson disease: a genome scan in the GenePD study.”American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 70, no. 5, 2002, pp. 1089-1095.

[4] Fuchs, J., et al. “Genetic variability in the SNCA gene influences alpha-synuclein levels in the blood and brain.”FASEB Journal, vol. 22, 2008, pp. 1327–1334.

[5] Gibb, W. R., and A. J. Lees. “The Relevance of the Lewy Body to the Pathogenesis of Idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease.”Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, vol. 51, no. 6, 1988, pp. 745-752.

[6] Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. “Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls.” Nature, vol. 447, no. 7145, 2007, pp. 661-78.

[7] Pankratz, N., et al. “Genes influencing Parkinson disease onset: replication of PARK3 and identification of novel loci.”Neurology, vol. 62, no. 9, 2004, pp. 1616-1618.

[8] Bertram, Lars, et al. “Genome-wide association analysis reveals putative Alzheimer’s disease susceptibility loci in addition to APOE.”American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 83, no. 5, 2008, pp. 623-32.

[9] Mueller, J. C., et al. “Multiple regions of a-synuclein are associated with Parkinson’s disease.”Annals of Neurology, vol. 57, 2005, pp. 535–541.

[10] Zimprich, A., et al. “Mutations in LRRK2 cause autosomal-dominant parkinsonism with pleomorphic pathology.” Neuron, vol. 44, 2004, pp. 601-607.

[11] Pankratz, N., et al. “Genomewide association study for susceptibility genes contributing to familial Parkinson disease.”Human Genetics, vol. 124, no. 6, 2009, pp. 593-605.

[12] Maraganore, D. M., et al. “High-Resolution Whole-Genome Association Study of Parkinson Disease.”American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 77, no. 5, 2005, pp. 685-693.

[13] Kitada, T., et al. “Mutations in the parkin gene cause autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism.” Nature, vol. 392, 1998, pp. 605-608.

[14] Li, Y-J., et al. “Age at onset in two common neurodegenerative diseases is genetically controlled.” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 70, 2002, pp. 985–993.

[15] Leroy, E., et al. “The ubiquitin pathway in Parkinson’s disease.”Nature, vol. 395, 1998, pp. 451-452.

[16] Wilkes, K. M., et al. “Functional association of the parkin gene promoter with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.”Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 11, 2002, pp. 2787-2792.

[17] Muller, J. M., and W. Scheper. “Activation of the unfolded protein response in Parkinson’s disease.”Biochem Biophys Res Commun, vol. 354, no. 3, 2007, pp. 707-711.

[18] Benedetti, M. D., et al. “Hysterectomy, menopause, and estrogen use preceding Parkinson’s disease.”Movement Disorders, vol. 16, 2001, pp. 830–837.

[19] Gasser, T. “Genetics of Parkinson’s disease.”Annals of Neurology, vol. 44, no. 3 Suppl 1, 1998, pp. S53-57.

[20] Zhang, Y., et al. “Transcriptional analysis of multiple brain regions in Parkinson’s disease supports the involvement of specific protein processing, energy.”

[21] Yasuhara, T., et al. “Neuroprotective effects of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) upon dopaminergic neurons in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease.”European Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 19, 2004, pp. 1494-1504.

[22] Wirdefeldt, K., et al. “No evidence for heritability of Parkinson disease in Swedish twins.”Neurology, vol. 63, 2004, pp. 305-311.

[23] Pankratz, N., et al. “Genome screen to identify susceptibility genes for Parkinson disease in a sample without parkin mutations.”American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 71, no. 1, 2002, pp. 124-135.

[24] Pankratz, Nathan, et al. “Genomewide association study for susceptibility genes contributing to familial Parkinson disease.”Human Genetics, vol. 124, no. 6, 2008, pp. 593-605.

[25] Scheper, W., et al. “Activation of the unfolded protein response in Parkinson’s disease.”Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 354, no. 3, 2007, pp. 707-711.