BACKGROUND: Mitochondrial function is impaired in Parkinson's disease (PD) and may contribute to the pathogenesis of PD, but the causes of mitochondrial impairment in PD are unknown. Mitochondrial dysfunction is recapitulated in cell lines expressing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from PD patients, implicating mtDNA variants or mutations, though the role of mtDNA variants or mutations in PD risk remains unclear. We investigated the potential contribution of mtDNA variants or mutations to the risk of PD. METHODS: We examined the possibility of a maternal inheritance bias as well as the association between mitochondrial haplogroups and maternal inheritance and disease risk in a case-control study of 168 multiplex PD families in which the proband and one parent were diagnosed with PD. 2-tailed Fisher Exact Tests and McNemar's tests were used to compare allele frequencies, and a t-test to compare ages of onset. RESULTS: The frequency of affected mothers of the proband with PD (83/167, 49.4%) was not significantly different from the frequency of affected females of the proband generation (115/259, 44.4%) (Odds Ratio 1.22; 95%CI 0.83-1.81). After correcting for multiple tests, there were no significant differences in the frequencies of mitochondrial haplogroups or of the 10398G complex I gene polymorphism in PD patients compared to controls, and no significant associations with age of onset of PD. Mitochondrial haplogroup and 10398G polymorphism frequencies were similar in probands having an affected father as compared to probands having an affected mother. CONCLUSIONS: These data fail to demonstrate a bias towards maternal inheritance in familial PD. Consistent with this, we find no association of common haplogroup-defining mtDNA variants or for the 10398G variant with the risk of PD. However, these data do not exclude a role for mtDNA variants in other populations, and it remains possible that other inherited mitochondrial DNA variants, or somatic mDNA mutations, contribute to the risk of familial PD.
BACKGROUND: Mitochondrial function is impaired in Parkinson's disease (PD) and may contribute to the pathogenesis of PD, but the causes of mitochondrial impairment in PD are unknown. Mitochondrial dysfunction is recapitulated in cell lines expressing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from PDpatients, implicating mtDNA variants or mutations, though the role of mtDNA variants or mutations in PD risk remains unclear. We investigated the potential contribution of mtDNA variants or mutations to the risk of PD. METHODS: We examined the possibility of a maternal inheritance bias as well as the association between mitochondrial haplogroups and maternal inheritance and disease risk in a case-control study of 168 multiplex PD families in which the proband and one parent were diagnosed with PD. 2-tailed Fisher Exact Tests and McNemar's tests were used to compare allele frequencies, and a t-test to compare ages of onset. RESULTS: The frequency of affected mothers of the proband with PD (83/167, 49.4%) was not significantly different from the frequency of affected females of the proband generation (115/259, 44.4%) (Odds Ratio 1.22; 95%CI 0.83-1.81). After correcting for multiple tests, there were no significant differences in the frequencies of mitochondrial haplogroups or of the 10398G complex I gene polymorphism in PDpatients compared to controls, and no significant associations with age of onset of PD. Mitochondrial haplogroup and 10398G polymorphism frequencies were similar in probands having an affected father as compared to probands having an affected mother. CONCLUSIONS: These data fail to demonstrate a bias towards maternal inheritance in familial PD. Consistent with this, we find no association of common haplogroup-defining mtDNA variants or for the 10398G variant with the risk of PD. However, these data do not exclude a role for mtDNA variants in other populations, and it remains possible that other inherited mitochondrial DNA variants, or somatic mDNA mutations, contribute to the risk of familial PD.
Authors: R H Swerdlow; J K Parks; J N Davis; D S Cassarino; P A Trimmer; L J Currie; J Dougherty; W S Bridges; J P Bennett; G F Wooten; W D Parker Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: ZaoDung Ling; Dave A Gayle; Shang Yong Ma; Jack W Lipton; Chong Wai Tong; Jau-Shyong Hong; Paul M Carvey Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: David K Simon; Michael T Lin; Leiya Zheng; Guang-Jun Liu; Colette H Ahn; Lauren M Kim; William M Mauck; Florence Twu; M Flint Beal; Donald R Johns Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Prachi Mehta; George D Mellick; Dominic B Rowe; Glenda M Halliday; Michael M Jones; Neil Manwaring; Himesha Vandebona; Peter A Silburn; Jie Jin Wang; Paul Mitchell; Carolyn M Sue Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2009-01-30 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Nathan Pankratz; Jemma B Wilk; Jeanne C Latourelle; Anita L DeStefano; Cheryl Halter; Elizabeth W Pugh; Kimberly F Doheny; James F Gusella; William C Nichols; Tatiana Foroud; Richard H Myers Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: S Venkateswaran; K Zheng; M Sacchetti; D Gagne; D L Arnold; A D Sadovnick; S W Scherer; B Banwell; A Bar-Or; D K Simon Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dana M Reiff; Rita Spathis; Chim W Chan; Miguel G Vilar; Krithivasan Sankaranarayanan; Daniel Lynch; Emily Ehrlich; Samantha Kerath; Risana Chowdhury; Leah Robinowitz; J Koji Lum; Ralph M Garruto Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Yi-Ju Li; Mollie A Minear; Xuejun Qin; Jacqueline Rimmler; Michael A Hauser; R Rand Allingham; Robert P Igo; Jonathan H Lass; Sudha K Iyengar; Gordon K Klintworth; Natalie A Afshari; Simon G Gregory Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.799