Copy Number Variation in Familial Parkinson Disease

Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 08/2011; 6(8):e20988. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020988
Source: PubMed


Copy number variants (CNVs) are known to cause Mendelian forms of Parkinson disease (PD), most notably in SNCA and PARK2. PARK2 has a recessive mode of inheritance; however, recent evidence demonstrates that a single CNV in PARK2 (but not a single missense mutation) may increase risk for PD. We recently performed a genome-wide association study for PD that excluded individuals known to have either a LRRK2 mutation or two PARK2 mutations. Data from the Illumina370Duo arrays were re-clustered using only white individuals with high quality intensity data, and CNV calls were made using two algorithms, PennCNV and QuantiSNP. After quality assessment, the final sample included 816 cases and 856 controls. Results varied between the two CNV calling algorithms for many regions, including the PARK2 locus (genome-wide p = 0.04 for PennCNV and p = 0.13 for QuantiSNP). However, there was consistent evidence with both algorithms for two novel genes, USP32 and DOCK5 (empirical, genome-wide p-values<0.001). PARK2 CNVs tended to be larger, and all instances that were molecularly tested were validated. In contrast, the CNVs in both novel loci were smaller and failed to replicate using real-time PCR, MLPA, and gel electrophoresis. The DOCK5 variation is more akin to a VNTR than a typical CNV and the association is likely caused by artifact due to DNA source. DNA for all the cases was derived from whole blood, while the DNA for all controls was derived from lymphoblast cell lines. The USP32 locus contains many SNPs with low minor allele frequency leading to a loss of heterozygosity that may have been spuriously interpreted by the CNV calling algorithms as support for a deletion. Thus, only the CNVs within the PARK2 locus could be molecularly validated and associated with PD susceptibility.

Download full-text


Available from: Alexandra Dumitriu,
  • Source
    • "Copy-number variants (CNVs), usually defined as genomic deletions and duplications greater than 1 Kb, are an important cause of genetic variation in the general population [Abecasis et al., 2012; Sudmant et al., 2010] and contribute to both simple Mendelian and complex genetic traits [Girirajan et al., 2012; Pankratz et al., 2011]. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a common inherited cardiovascular disease predominantly caused by missense mutations in cardiac sarcomeric protein genes [Maron et al., 2012]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The role of copy-number variants (CNV) as a cause of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is poorly studied. The aim of this study was to use high-throughput sequence (HTS) data combined with a read-depth strategy, to screen for CNV in cardiomyopathy-associated genes in a large consecutive cohort of HCM patients. Methods: Five-hundred-and-five unrelated HCM patients were genotyped using a HTS approach for 41 cardiovascular genes. We used a previously validated read-depth strategy (ExomeDepth) to call CNVs from the short-read sequence data. Detected CNVs in 19 cardiomyopathy-associated genes were then validated by comparative genomic hybridization array. Results: Twelve CNVs were identified. Four CNVs in 4 patients (0.8% of the cohort) were validated: one large deletion in MYBPC3, one large deletion in PDLIM3, one duplication of the entire TNNT2 gene and one large duplication in LMNA. Conclusions: Our data suggest that the proportion of HCM cases with pathogenic CNVs is small (< 1%). For the small subset of patients with clearly interpretable CNVs, our findings have direct clinical implications. Short read sequence data can be used for CNV calling, but the high false positive rate requires a validation step. The two-step strategy described here is effective at identifying novel genetic causes of HCM and similar techniques should be applied whenever possible.
    European Journal of Medical Genetics 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ejmg.2015.10.001 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "All de novo variants were also visually confirmed in GenomeStudio . Subjects containing numbers of CNVs 3 standard derivations from the cohort mean were removed from further analysis (Pankratz et al., 2011). To reduce the possibility of type I error, only deletions spanning 5 consecutive SNPs and duplications spanning 10 consecutive SNPs were included. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: We sought to characterize the landscape of structural variation associated with the subset of congenital cardiac defects characterized by left-sided obstruction. Methods: Cases with left-sided cardiac defects (LSCD) and pediatric controls were uniformly genotyped and assessed for copy number variant (CNV) calls. Significance testing was performed to ascertain differences in overall CNV incidence, and for CNV enrichment of specific genes and gene functions in LSCD cases relative to controls. Results: A total of 257 cases of European descent and 962 ethnically matched, disease-free pediatric controls were included. Although there was no difference in CNV rate between cases and controls, a significant enrichment in rare LSCD CNVs was detected overall (p=7.30 × 10(-3) , case/control ratio=1.26) and when restricted either to deletions (p=7.58 × 10(-3) , case/control ratio=1.20) or duplications (3.02 × 10(-3) , case/control ratio=1.43). Neither gene-based, functional nor knowledge-based analyses identified genes, loci or pathways that were significantly enriched in cases as compared to controls when appropriate corrections for multiple tests were applied. However, several genes of interest were identified by virtue of their association with cardiac development, known human conditions, or reported disruption by CNVs in other patient cohorts. Conclusion: This study examines the largest cohort to date with LSCD for structural variation. These data suggest that CNVs play a role in disease risk and identify numerous genes disrupted by CNVs of potential disease relevance. These findings further highlight the genetic heterogeneity and complexity of these disorders.
    Birth Defects Research Part A Clinical and Molecular Teratology 12/2014; 100(12). DOI:10.1002/bdra.23279 · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Less is known with respect to Dock10 and Dock11, although a rare Dock10 gene deletion is associated with autism spectrum disorders (Nava et al., 2014). Although an association between Dock5 and Parkinson's disease has been suggested (Pankratz et al., 2011), the authors themselves noted that the "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Small GTPases participate in a broad range of cellular processes such as proliferation, differentiation, and migration. The exchange of GDP for GTP resulting in the activation of these GTPases is catalyzed by a group of enzymes called guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), of which two classes: Dbl-related exchange factors and the more recently described dedicator of cytokinesis proteins family exchange factors. Increasingly, deregulation of normal GEF activity or function has been associated with a broad range of disease states, including neurodegeneration and neurodevelopmental disorders. In this review, we examine this evidence with special emphasis on the novel role of Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor (RGNEF/p190RhoGEF) in the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. RGNEF is the first neurodegeneration-linked GEF that regulates not only RhoA GTPase activation but also functions as an RNA binding protein that directly acts with low molecular weight neurofilament mRNA 3' untranslated region to regulate its stability. This dual role for RGNEF, coupled with the increasing understanding of the key role for GEFs in modulating the GTPase function in cell survival suggests a prominent role for GEFs in mediating a critical balance between cytotoxicity and neuroprotection which, when disturbed, contributes to neuronal loss.
    Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 09/2014; 8. DOI:10.3389/fncel.2014.00282 · 4.29 Impact Factor
Show more