How large was the group that was tested? Quite frankly, I'm surprised they only found three common genetic signatures. What is the rate at which the same genetic signatures occur in the non-Parkinson's population?
I've been a part least 4 genetic studies, since I was diagnosed, and haven't learned anything useful about my own condition. But this area of study is young, and I will keep participating until they find useful information. Let's hope this is it, but at the surface it just sounds too simple.
I'm not a geneticist or a doctor, but I'd be very surprised if in the end, they don't discover at least a dozen different disease processes which are currently grouped under a common label of Parkinson's disease. Some will be genetic, some will be environmental combined with genetic, some will be purely environmental, and some may even be psychological in origin.
It is amazing how we advance in research terms, but lag behind in screening etc (I can only speak from the UK perspective) and helping evolve treatments. Let’s hope things change over the next few years.
Genetic factors only figure in a minority of PD cases, so if there are three genetically caused forms of PD then there must be at least one more non-genetically caused variety.
I've always believed that we should focus on etiology and underlying mechanisms by which PD is sustained, rather than lumping diverse patients together under a single "PD" diagnosis. And "three kinds" of PD is still just a more finely discriminated diagnosis. I'd be interested to hear about the three mechanisms of action that sustain each of these three genetically caused types of PD.
How large was the group that was tested? Quite frankly, I'm surprised they only found three common genetic signatures. What is the rate at which the same genetic signatures occur in the non-Parkinson's population?
Does what this group found correlate others? For example here's some information summarized by the Michael J. Fox foundation.: https://www.michaeljfox.org/news/parkinsons-genetics
I've been a part least 4 genetic studies, since I was diagnosed, and haven't learned anything useful about my own condition. But this area of study is young, and I will keep participating until they find useful information. Let's hope this is it, but at the surface it just sounds too simple.
I'm not a geneticist or a doctor, but I'd be very surprised if in the end, they don't discover at least a dozen different disease processes which are currently grouped under a common label of Parkinson's disease. Some will be genetic, some will be environmental combined with genetic, some will be purely environmental, and some may even be psychological in origin.
It is amazing how we advance in research terms, but lag behind in screening etc (I can only speak from the UK perspective) and helping evolve treatments. Let’s hope things change over the next few years.
Ummm ... mercury and other heavy metal intoxication?
Why not screen for the obvious first?
Genetic factors only figure in a minority of PD cases, so if there are three genetically caused forms of PD then there must be at least one more non-genetically caused variety.
I've always believed that we should focus on etiology and underlying mechanisms by which PD is sustained, rather than lumping diverse patients together under a single "PD" diagnosis. And "three kinds" of PD is still just a more finely discriminated diagnosis. I'd be interested to hear about the three mechanisms of action that sustain each of these three genetically caused types of PD.
It’s good to see that research is making some progress.
So true, if you don’t know what it is how can you cure it.