The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The rs1572931 polymorphism of the RAB7L1 gene promoter is associated with reduced risk of Parkinson's disease
Abstract
Introduction Parkinson's disease (PD) is one of the most common neurologic disorders affecting about 2% of people over 65 years old and both genetic and environmental factors are involved in its aetiology. The genetic part includes several genes and polymorphisms that are the direct cause of disease or its susceptibility factor. The rs1572931 polymorphism of RAB7L1 gene, located in the promoter region, has been recently studied and shown to be strongly associated with reducing risk of PD. In this study, we aim to investigate its association with PD in Iranian population. Methods We examined the association of rs1572931 polymorphism with PD in 490 unrelated Patients and 490 normal controls by PCR-RFLP method in Iranian subjects. Results A significant difference in genotype and allele frequencies was observed between patients and controls (p value = 0.003, OR (95% CI) = 0.71(0.56-0.90)). The TT genotype and the T allele were both significantly less frequent in PD cases. Conclusion Our results confirmed the protective effect of the rs1572931 SNP on PD and replicated the results of previous studies, in Iranian subjects. We suggest further studies in other populations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“RAB29 is contained within the PARK16 locus, which is linked to Parkinson’s disease”
From Distinct Roles for RAB10 and RAB29 in Pathogenic LRRK2-Mediated Endolysosomal Trafficking Alterations (2020) · cites this paper as [52]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- de Rijk MC, 2000, Neurologic Diseases in the Elderly Research Group. Neurology, 54, S21
- 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.10.019 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.molmed.2006.09.007 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.07.013 · DOI
- 10.1101/cshperspect.a008888 · DOI
- 10.1111/ene.12490 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/archneurol.2011.924 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.033 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/ejhg.2010.125 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3109/00207454.2011.598983 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.05.022 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rivero-Ríos, P., Romo-Lozano, M., Fernández, B., Fdez, E., & Hilfiker, S. (2020) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells9071719 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Goudarzian, M., Khaligh, A., Fourozan, R., Jamal Mirmoosavi, S., Darvish, H., Safaralizadeh, T., & Emamalizadeh, B.
- Venue
- Neurological Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-09-07
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1029-1031
- ISSN
- 0161-6412
- 1743-1328
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review