↓ Skip to main content

Somatic copy number gains of α-synuclein (SNCA) in Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy brains.

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
45 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Somatic copy number gains of α-synuclein (SNCA) in Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy brains.
Published in
Brain, June 2018
DOI 10.1093/brain/awy157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katya Mokretar, Daniel Pease, Jan-Willem Taanman, Aynur Soenmez, Ayesha Ejaz, Tammaryn Lashley, Helen Ling, Steve Gentleman, Henry Houlden, Janice L Holton, Anthony H V Schapira, Elizabeth Nacheva, Christos Proukakis

Abstract

The α-synuclein protein, encoded by SNCA, has a key role in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease and other synucleinopathies. Although usually sporadic, Parkinson's disease can result from inherited copy number variants in SNCA and other genes. We have hypothesized a role of somatic SNCA mutations, leading to mosaicism, in sporadic synucleinopathies. The evidence for mosaicism in healthy and diseased brain is increasing rapidly, with somatic copy number gains of APP reported in Alzheimer's brain. Here we demonstrate somatic SNCA copy number gains in synucleinopathies (Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy), focusing on substantia nigra. We selected sporadic cases with relatively young onset or short disease duration, and first excluded high level copy number variant mosaicism by DNA analysis using digital PCR for SNCA, and/or customized array comparative genomic hybridization. To detect low level SNCA copy number variant mosaicism, we used fluorescent in situ hybridization with oligonucleotide custom-designed probes for SNCA, validated on brain and fibroblasts with known copy number variants. We determined SNCA copy number in nigral dopaminergic neurons and other cells in frozen nigra sections from 40 cases with Parkinson's disease and five with multiple system atrophy, and 25 controls, in a blinded fashion. Parkinson's disease cases were significantly more likely than controls to have any SNCA gains in dopaminergic neurons (P = 0.0036), and overall (P = 0.0052). The average proportion of dopaminergic neurons with gains in each nigra was significantly higher in Parkinson's disease than controls (0.78% versus 0.45%; P = 0.017). There was a negative correlation between the proportion of dopaminergic neurons with gains and onset age in Parkinson's disease (P = 0.013), but not with disease duration, or age of death in cases or controls. Cases with tremor at onset were less likely to have gains (P = 0.035). All multiple system atrophy cases had gains, and the highest levels in dopaminergic neurons were in two of these cases (2.76%, 2.48%). We performed selective validation with different probes after dye swapping. All three control probes used showed minimal or no gains (≤0.1% in dopaminergic neurons). We also found occasional SNCA gains in frontal neurons of cases with Parkinson's disease, and the putamen of one multiple system atrophy case. We present evidence of somatic SNCA gains in brain, more commonly in nigral dopaminergic neurons of Parkinson's disease than controls, negatively correlated with onset age, and possibly commonest in some multiple system atrophy cases. Somatic SNCA gains may be a risk factor for sporadic synucleinopathies, or a result of the disease process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 28 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 33 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,206,901
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#1,270
of 7,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,779
of 341,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#31
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.