Analysis of heterozygous PRKN variants and copy number variations in Parkinson’s disease
==========================================================================================

* Eric Yu
* Uladzislau Rudakov
* Lynne Krohn
* Kheireddin Mufti
* Jennifer A. Ruskey
* Farnaz Asayesh
* Mehrdad A. Estiar
* Dan Spiegelman
* Stanley Fahn
* Cheryl H. Waters
* Lior Greenbaum
* Alberto J. Espay
* Yves Dauvilliers
* Nicolas Dupré
* Guy A. Rouleau
* Sharon Hassin-Baer
* Edward A. Fon
* Roy N. Alcalay
* Ziv Gan-Or

## Abstract

Biallelic *PRKN* mutation carriers with Parkinson’s disease typically have an earlier disease onset, slow disease progression and, often, different neuropathology compared to sporadic patients. However, the role of heterozygous *PRKN* variants in the risk of Parkinson’s disease remains unclear. In the current study we examined the association between heterozygous *PRKN* variants, including single nucleotide variants and copy number variations, and Parkinson’s disease status. We fully sequenced *PRKN* in 2,807 Parkinson’s disease patients and 3,627 healthy controls, including 1,903 late onset (mean [Standard Deviation], 64.02±7.81 years, 1,196 men [63%]) and 542 early onset patients (mean [SD], 43.30±6.60, 368 men [68%]). *PRKN* was sequenced using targeted next-generation sequencing with molecular inversion probes. Copy number variations were identified using a combination of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and the ExomeDepth tool. To examine whether rare heterozygous variants and copy number variations in *PRKN* are associated with Parkinson’s disease risk and onset, we used optimized sequence kernel association tests and regression models. We did not find any associations between all types of *PRKN* variants and risk of Parkinson’s disease. Pathogenic and likely pathogenic heterozygous variants and copy number variations were less common among Parkinson’s disease patients (1.0%) than among controls (1.3%, *P*=0.006, not statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons). These results suggest that heterozygous variants and copy number variations in *PRKN* are not associated with Parkinson’s disease. Molecular inversion probes allow for rapid and cost-effective detection of all types of *PRKN* variants, which may be useful for pre-trial screening and for clinical and basic science studies specifically targeting *PRKN* patients.

Abbreviations
:   
Age at onset
:   :AAO
American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics
:   :ACMG
Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion
:   :CADD
Copy number variation
:   :CNV
Early onset Parkinson’s disease
:   :EOPD
Genome Aggregation Database
:   :GnomAD
Late onset Parkinson’s disease
:   :LOPD
Minor allele frequency
:   :MAF
Molecular inversion probe
:   :MIP
Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification
:   :MLPA
Optimized sequence kernel association test
:   :SKAT-O
Quality control
:   :QC
Single nucleotide variants
:   :SNV

Keywords
*   Parkinson’s disease
*   copy number variation
*   association study
*   genetics: neurodegeneration
*   mitophagy

## Introduction

Parkinson’s disease is a common neurodegenerative disorder with a typical age at onset (AAO) ranging between 60-70 years (Pagano et al., 2016). However, a subgroup of patients have early onset Parkinson’s disease (EOPD), typically defined as AAO < 50 years (Schrag et al., 2006). The most common known genetic cause of EOPD are homozygous or compound heterozygous variants in the *PRKN* gene, found in 6.0-12.4% of individuals who present with Parkinson’s disease symptoms before the age of 50 (Alcalay et al., 2010; Bonifati, 2012; Kilarski et al., 2012). *PRKN* has a high rate of single nucleotide variants (SNV) and copy number variations (CNVs), since it is located in a genomic region prone to rearrangements (Ambroziak et al., 2015; La Cognata et al., 2017). *PRKN* encodes Parkin, an E3 ubiquitin protein ligase important in mitophagy (Brüggemann and Klein, 2013).

Neuropathological studies have demonstrated that individuals with biallelic *PRKN* variants diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease do not have the typical neuropathology of Parkinson’s disease, as Lewy bodies are absent in most cases, and the neurodegenerative process is limited to the substantia nigra (Mata et al., 2004; Schneider and Alcalay, 2017a). It is therefore possible that patients with biallelic *PRKN* variants represent a distinct subgroup, or arguably a distinct disease with similar clinical features (Schneider and Alcalay, 2017a). Since we are moving towards therapies targeting specific genetic defects in Parkinson’s disease (such as *GBA* and LRRK2-targeting therapies), or α-synuclein accumulation (Sardi et al., 2018) (which is mostly absent in PRKN-related patients) (Mata et al., 2004), it is crucial to properly identify these patients. However, the role of rare heterozygous *PRKN* SNVs and CNVs in Parkinson’s disease have not been clearly established by association studies (Nalls et al., 2019). Prior studies have shown contradictory results in familial Parkinson’s disease, EOPD and late onset Parkinson’s disease (LOPD) using SNVs and/or CNVs (Lincoln et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2005; Clark et al., 2006; Kay et al., 2007; Bras et al., 2008; Lesage et al., 2008; Simon - Sanchez et al., 2008; Sironi et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2008; Brooks et al., 2009; Camargos et al., 2009; Macedo et al., 2009; Kay et al., 2010; Pankratz et al., 2011; Camacho et al., 2012; Moura et al., 2013; Fiala et al., 2014; Huttenlocher et al., 2015; Bandrés-Ciga et al., 2016; Benitez et al., 2016; Spataro et al., 2017).

To investigate the potential effect of rare heterozygous SNVs and CNVs in Parkinson’s disease, we applied a simple, fast and cost-effective method to detect both types of variants. Using targeted next generation sequencing and bioinformatic approaches, we fully sequenced *PRKN* to identify both SNVs and CNVs in a large cohort of Parkinson’s disease, including LOPD and EOPD.

## Materials and Methods

### Study Population

A total of 2,807 unrelated and consecutively recruited Parkinson’s disease patients and 3,627 controls from three cohorts were sequenced, including 1,903 LOPD patients (mean [SD], 64.02±7.81 years, 1,196 men [63%]) and 542 EOPD patients (mean [SD], 43.30±6.60, 368 men [68%]). AAO was not available for 349 patients. After excluding low quality samples, we performed statistical analysis on 6,121 individuals. The three cohorts are detailed in Table 1 and include: a) a cohort collected at McGill University, including French-Canadian (mostly recruited through the Quebec Parkinson Network) (Gan-Or et al., 2020) and French participants recruited in Quebec, Canada and Montpellier, France, b) a cohort recruited at Columbia University, New York, as previously described (Alcalay *et al*., 2015), primarily composed of individuals of European origin and Ashkenazi Jews, and c) a cohort collected at the Sheba Medical Center, Israel, of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, as previously described (Ruskey et al., 2019). Parkinson’s disease was diagnosed by movement disorder specialists according to the UK Brain Bank Criteria, without excluding patients with positive family history (Hughes et al., 1992) or the Movement Disorders Society Criteria (Postuma et al., 2015). Study protocols were approved by the relevant Institutional Review Boards and all patients signed informed consent before participating in the study.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/18/2020.05.07.20072728/T1)

Table 1. 
Study populations included in the analysis

### Genetic analysis

#### *PRKN* sequencing

All samples were sequenced at McGill University, Canada using the same method. A total of 50 genes were captured using molecular inversion probes (MIPs) and sequenced as previously described (Ross et al., 2016). In brief, probes that specifically target the coding sequences of the genes of interest were designed, followed by capture and PCR amplification of the targeted regions. After adding barcodes, samples were pooled and sequenced at the McGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre with Illumina HiSeq 2500/4000. The full protocol is available upon request. Alignment (GRCh37/hg19), quality control and variant calls were done using the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA) (Li and Durbin, 2009), Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK v3.8) (McKenna et al., 2010), and ANNOVAR (Wang et al., 2010) as previously described (Rudakou et al., 2020). Only rare variants (minor allele frequency, MAF, < 0.01) according to the public database Genome Aggregation Database (GnomAD) (Lek et al., 2016) with a minimum coverage of 30x were included in the analysis. Samples with more than 10% missingness were excluded. The script for these analyses can be found at [https://github.com/gan](https://github.com/gan)- We examined all rare exonic variants using the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV v 2.7) (Robinson et al., 2011). All variants were classified using Varsome (Kopanos et al., 2018) according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) standards and guidelines into five categories: pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign and benign.

#### Detection and validation of copy number variations

There are four general types of methods to infer CNVs from next-generation sequencing (Zhao et al., 2013). Because MIPs target only a small portion of the genome, most CNV breakpoints will not be sequenced. Therefore, only read-depth based methods can be applied for MIPs since other types of methods utilize reads that span breakpoints. In order to detect CNVs, we examined two methods based on read depth for the MIP data, ExomeDepth v1.1.10 (Plagnol et al., 2012) and panelcn.MOPS v1.4.0 in R (Povysil et al., 2017). When using ExomeDepth, each test sample is compared to the best set of reference samples out of 3,627 controls, chosen by the software according to the correlation of the coverage for each probe between the test sample and the reference samples. A filter for samples with correlation above 0.97 per the suggestion of the developer was applied to remove false positives. Panelcn.MOPS also selects the best set of reference samples according to correlation and includes several quality control (QC) steps, such as a minimum user defined depth of coverage per probe. Probes are marked as low quality if their read count shows high variance across the test sample and selected references. To validate CNVs, we performed multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) using the SALSA MLPA P051-D2 Parkinson probemix 1 kit according to the manufacturer instructions (MRC Holland), which is the gold standard for *PRKN* CNV detection.

### Quality Control of MIPs for CNV detection

The highest performing parameters were achieved by excluding probes from genes in our library where the average coverage was below 100X in more than 15% of the coding and untranslated regions of the genes. Probes with average coverage below 100X, and samples with average coverage across all genes less than 50X were also excluded.

### Statistical Analysis

The association between rare heterozygous variants (MAF<0.01), heterozygous CNV and Parkinson’s disease were tested using an optimized sequence kernel association test (SKAT-O v1.3.2 in R) (Lee et al., 2012) in all cohorts separately. Rare variants were grouped by: a) CADD score (CADD>12.37), which represent the top 2% of variants predicted to be deleterious, b) functional variants, which include stop gain, nonsynonymous, splice-site and frameshift variants, c) nonsynonymous variants, and d) loss-of-function variants, which include frameshift, splice-site and stop gain variants. A meta-analysis was performed using MetaSKAT (MetaSKAT v0.80, R) (Lee et al., 2013) on all cohorts for heterozygous SNVs, CNVs, and both combined, according to the five ACMG categories (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign and benign). The association between heterozygous SNVs, CNVs and AAO of Parkinson’s disease was also calculated using linear regression adjusted for sex and ancestry as needed in all cohorts separately. Patients carrying *GBA* variants or the *LRRK2* p.Gly2019Ser variant were excluded. METAL (Willer *et al*., 2010) was used to performed fixed-effect meta-analysis on all cohorts in the AAO analysis.

### Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

## Results

### Identification of *PRKN* SNVs and CNVs

The average coverage of *PRKN* (NM_004562) across all samples was 988X, with 98% of nucleotides covered at >30X, and 94% covered at >100X. We identified 199 rare variants including nonsynonymous, frameshift deletions and splice site variants in *PRKN* across all cohorts (Supplementary Table 1).

To identify CNVs, we first aimed to examine which calling method is best suited to properly call CNVs from our MIP targeted sequencing panel. For this purpose, we screened for CNVs in 510 samples using MLPA, the gold standard for CNV detection in *PRKN*. We specifically enriched these samples with EOPD patients to increase the chances to detect CNVs. Out of the 510 samples, 46 carried CNVs in *PRKN* (32 patients and 14 controls). The 32 patients included four homozygous *PRKN* deletion carriers, 17 heterozygous deletion carriers and 11 duplication carriers. Subsequently, we have examined which method (ExomeDepth or panel.cnMOPS) has the highest performance. Except for one deletion for which the MIPs data did not pass QC due to low coverage call rate, deletions and duplications in *PRKN* were identified with 97% sensitivity and 96% specificity using ExomeDepth. In contrast, using the best parameters, panel.cnMOPS had 98% sensitivity but only 54% specificity using samples that passed QC when compared to MLPA. The parameters and CNV call rates for each method are detailed in Supplementary Table 2. Due to its superior performance, we applied ExomeDepth on all cohorts, and identified a total of 53 carriers of CNVs in patients and controls (Supplementary Table 3).

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/18/2020.05.07.20072728/T2)

Table 2. 
Rare *PRKN* heterozygous SNV and CNV analysis for risk of Parkinson’s disease using SKAT-O

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/18/2020.05.07.20072728/T3)

Table 3. 
Rare *PRKN* heterozygous SNV and CNV analysis for Age at Onset of Parkinson’s disease

### Heterozygous *PRKN* SNVs and CNVs are not associated with Parkinson’s disease

To examine the association of rare (MAF < 0.01) heterozygous SNVs and CNVs on risk of Parkinson’s disease, we took two approaches. First, we performed a SKAT-O, in each cohort to determine whether there is a burden of heterozygous *PRKN* variants of different types. Pathogenic variants included pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants, while non-benign variants included pathogenic, likely pathogenic and variants of uncertain significance. All CNVs were considered as pathogenic loss-of-function variations. No statistically significant associations were found in any of the SKAT-O analyses (Table 2). Second, we performed a series of meta-analyses by collapsing in each cohort SNVs alone, CNVs alone, and combined. In this analysis too, adjusted for age, sex and ethnicity, no association between heterozygous carriage of *PRKN* mutations and Parkinson’s disease was found (Table 2). The strongest association was found in the meta-analysis for pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants which were less frequent in patients (1%) than in controls (1.3%, *P* = 0.006, not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction, Table 2), ruling out association with risk of Parkinson’s disease. Additional association tests between different types of heterozygous *PRKN* variants and risk for Parkinson’s disease, all negative, can be found in Supplementary Table 4.

### Heterozygous *PRKN* SNVs and CNVs are not associated with AAO of Parkinson’s disease

The association between rare heterozygous SNVs and CNVs on AAO of Parkinson’s disease was examined using linear regression in each cohort alone on the same groups of mutations mentioned in the previous association study. After adjusting for sex and ancestry, we found no association in any analyses. We also performed meta-analysis by collapsing each cohort which yielded no statistically significant results (Table 3). When examining pathogenic SNVs and CNVs combined, the meta-analysis shows an AAO earlier in heterozygous *PRKN* carriers by 4.09 years, but the association was not statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons. This was mainly driven by an effect of CNVs in the Columbia cohort, which was also not statistically significant on its own after correction for multiple comparisons. Larger studies for AAO of heterozygous *PRKN* carriers are needed to validate these findings. Association between different types of heterozygous *PRKN* variants and AAO for Parkinson’s disease can be found in Supplementary Table 5.

View this table:
[Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/18/2020.05.07.20072728/T4)

Table 4: 
Parkinson’s disease patients with biallelic pathogenic and likely pathogenic *PRKN* SNVs and CNVs.

### Identification of PRKN-associated parkinsonism patients

Overall, we were able to identify 11 patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic homozygous and compound heterozygous *PRKN* SNVs and/or CNVs (Table 4). The most common pathogenic SNV in our cohort was p.Gln34ArgfsTer5 mutation, found in 3 (23%) *PRKN* patients, and the most common CNV was heterozygous deletion of exon 3, found in 8 (62%) *PRKN* patients. The average AAO of Parkinson’s disease in biallelic *PRKN* SNV/CNV carriers was 34.27 [±14.67] years old.

## Discussion

In the current study, we found that the frequencies of heterozygous SNVs and CNVs in *PRKN* are similar in Parkinson’s disease patients and controls. These results do not support a role for heterozygous *PRKN* variants in the risk of Parkinson’s disease or its AAO. Since the *PRKN* region is prone to genetic variance (Ambroziak et al., 2015), including multiple SNVs and CNVs, properly genotyping all types of *PRKN* variants could be challenging. Using a simple, fast and cost-effective method, we were able to successfully detect all CNVs, SNVs and indels. With MIPs, deep coverage can be achieved, and the probes always target the exact same region, as opposed to whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing where there is no full overlap between all the reads. When the coverage is high, it provides an advantage that allows for more accurate calls of CNVs as well as SNVs and indels. Using this approach, we have identified 199 rare *PRKN* variants and 53 participants with *PRKN* CNVs, with very high sensitivity and specificity (97% and 96%, respectively, when compared to the gold standard MLPA method). Our approach can therefore be used for large-scale screening of Parkinson’s disease cohorts, with only validation of detected *PRKN* CNVs with MLPA, instead of fully screening all patients with MLPA. Of note, we identified 11 patients with pathogenic and likely pathogenic biallelic *PRKN* variants. This number of patients is lower than previously reported in EOPD. It is possible that in Ashkenazi Jewish Parkinson’s disease patients (comprising the entire Sheba cohort and a large portion of the Columbia cohort), the frequency of *PRKN* variants is lower, as evident by the lack of such patients in the Sheba cohort. This is also supported by the Columbia cohort, in which all biallelic *PRKN* patients are of European ancestry and none among the Ashkenazi Jewish origin.

There have been multiple studies analyzing the role of heterozygous *PRKN* mutations with conflicting results, shown in Supplementary Table 6. These conflicts may arise from different screening approaches. Some studies first sequenced all patients for rare SNVs and/or CNVs, then sequenced only for selected variants in controls. This approach will create a bias, as the controls may carry other pathogenic *PRKN* variants. Other studies sequenced all patients and controls for heterozygous SNVs and/or CNVs more systematically, and the majority of them were negative. Systematic analysis, as was done in the current study, will avoid misrepresenting the genetic landscape of the study population. Our results do not support an association between heterozygous SNVs and CNVs in *PRKN* and Parkinson’s disease, which is supported by other systematic studies of *PRKN* as shown in Supplementary Table 6 (Lincoln et al., 2003; Kay et al., 2007; Simon - Sanchez et al., 2008; Kay et al., 2010; Bandrés-Ciga et al., 2016; Benitez et al, 2016). These results also emphasize the need for determining the pathogenicity of different *PRKN* variants, as many variants are currently defined as variants of unknown significance. Having a reliable assay for Parkin activity, as previously suggested, would provide an experimental way to assess pathogenicity of *PRKN* variants (Yi et al., 2019).

In recent years, treatments that target specific genes and proteins implicated by human genetic studies, such as *SNCA* (α-synuclein), *GBA* and *LRRK2*, are being tested in clinical trials (Sardi and Simuni, 2019). Therefore, identifying patients that may benefit from these trials, or conversely, patients that are less likely to benefit, is crucial. Neuropathological studies on brains of patients with PRKN-associated parkinsonism have demonstrated that the vast majority of patients with biallelic *PRKN* mutations do not have accumulation of α-synuclein and the typical Lewy bodies that are seen in Parkinson’s disease (Schneider and Alcalay, 2017b). Since α-synuclein does not accumulate, it is likely that treatment targeting α-synuclein will not be efficient for these patients, who should therefore be excluded from these clinical trials. Furthermore, the neurodegenerative process in PRKN-associated Parkinsonism is limited to the substantia nigra and locus coeruleus, and does not spread to other brain regions (Dawson and Dawson, 2010). Since we did not detect an association between heterozygous *PRKN* variants and Parkinson’s disease, we recommend that only biallelic *PRKN* variant carriers will be excluded from such trials, as it is likely that the presence of heterozygous *PRKN* variants in Parkinson’s disease patients is by chance. Clinically, patients with PRKN-associated Parkinsonism are also different, as they have early onset disease, slowly progressing and typically without or with very limited non-motor symptoms (Schneider and Alcalay, 2017b). Therefore, it is important to identify these patients, and our method for rapid and cost-effective detection of *PRKN* variants would be useful for pre-trial screening and for clinical and basic science studies specifically targeting *PRKN* patients.

Although this study examined heterozygous mutations systematically, there are several limitations. The error rate of ExomeDepth CNV detection could affect the results of the association study because not all samples were analysed using MLPA. Furthermore, potentially pathogenic intronic variants have not been examined since intronic regions were not sequenced. In addition, our cohorts were not matched for age and sex. Our controls are on average younger and our patients are predominantly composed of men, yet age and sex were adjusted for when possible. The missing age at onset of patients underpowers our AAO study, however, because data were missing at random, its effect on our results is likely minimal.

To conclude, our findings do not support a role for heterozygous *PRKN* variants in Parkinson’s disease, and additional large-scale studies are required for a definite conclusion. Our study and the methods we have used provide a framework and a cost-effective method for rapidly screening for all types of *PRKN* variants, which will be useful in future genetic and clinical studies, and for stratification or patient selection for clinical trials.

## Data Availability

Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. 

## Funding

This work was financially supported by grants from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA), the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives initiative (HBHL), and Parkinson Canada. The Columbia University cohort is supported by the Parkinson’s Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (K02NS080915, and UL1 TR000040) and the Brookdale Foundation.

## Competing interests

Dr. Fahn received consulting fees/honoraria for board membership from Retrophin Inc., Sun Pharma Advanced Research Co., LTD and Kashiv Pharma. Dr. Waters received research support from Sanofi, Biogen, Roche, consulting fees/honoraria from Amneal, Adamas, Impel, Kyowa, Mitsubishi, Neurocrine, US World Meds, Acadia, Acorda. Dr. Espay received grant support from the NIH and the Michael J Fox Foundation; personal compensation as a consultant/scientific advisory board member for Abbvie, Adamas, Acadia, Acorda, Neuroderm, Neurocrine, Impax/Amneal, Sunovion, Lundbeck, Osmotica Pharmaceutical, and US World Meds; publishing royalties from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Cambridge University Press, and Springer; and honoraria from US World Meds, Lundbeck, Acadia, Sunovion, the American Academy of Neurology, and the Movement Disorders Society. Dr. Dupré received consultancy fees from Actelion Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hassin-Baer received consulting fees from Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Abbvie Israel, Robotico Ltd., Medtronic Israel, Medison Pharma Israel. Dr. Fon received consulting fees from Inception Sciences. Dr. Alcalay received consultation fees from Biogen, Denali, Genzyme/Sanofi and Roche. Dr. Gan-Or received consultancy fees from Lysosomal Therapeutics Inc. (LTI), Idorsia, Prevail Therapeutics, Inceptions Sciences (now Ventus), Ono Therapeutics, Denali and Deerfield. No other competing interests were reported.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the participants for contributing to the study. GAR holds a Canada Research Chair in Genetics of the Nervous System and the Wilder Penfield Chair in Neurosciences. EAF is supported by a Foundation Grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FDN grant — 154301). ZGO is supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Chercheurs-boursiers award, in collaboration with Parkinson Quebec, and by the Young Investigator Award by Parkinson Canada. The access to part of the participants for this research has been made possible thanks to the Quebec Parkinson’s Network ([http://rpq-qpn.ca/en/](http://rpq-qpn.ca/en/)). We thank Daniel Rochefort, Helene Catoire, Clotilde Degroot and Vessela Zaharieva for their assistance.

*   Received May 7, 2020.
*   Revision received May 14, 2020.
*   Accepted May 18, 2020.


*   © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  Alcalay RN, Caccappolo E, Mejia-Santana H, Tang MX, Rosado L, Ross BM, et al. Frequency of known mutations in early-onset Parkinson disease: implication for genetic counseling: the consortium on risk for early onset Parkinson disease study. Arch Neurol 2010; 67(9): 1116–22.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneurol.2010.194&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20837857&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000282102800012&link_type=ISI) 

2.  Alcalay RN, Levy OA, Waters CC, Fahn S, Ford B, Kuo SH, et al. Glucocerebrosidase activity in Parkinson’s disease with and without GBA mutations. Brain 2015; 138(Pt 9): 2648–58.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/awv179&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26117366&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

3.  Ambroziak W, Koziorowski D, Duszyc K, Górka-Skoczylas P, Potulska-Chromik A, Sławek J, et al. Genomic instability in the PARK2 locus is associated with Parkinson’s disease. J Appl Genet 2015; 56(4): 451–61.
    
    

4.  Bandrés-Ciga S, Price TR, Barrero FJ, Escamilla-Sevilla F, Pelegrina J, Arepalli S, et al. Genome-wide assessment of Parkinson’s disease in a Southern Spanish population. Neurobiol Aging 2016; 45: 213. e3-. e9.
    
    

5.  Benitez BA, Davis AA, Jin SC, Ibanez L, Ortega-Cubero S, Pastor P, et al. Resequencing analysis of five Mendelian genes and the top genes from genome-wide association studies in Parkinson’s Disease. Mol Neurodegener 2016; 11(1): 29.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13024-016-0097-0&link_type=DOI) 

6.  Bonifati V. Autosomal recessive parkinsonism. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2012; 18: S4&S6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1353-8020(11)70004-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22166450&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

7.  Bras J, Guerreiro R, Ribeiro M, Morgadinho A, Januario C, Dias M, et al. Analysis of Parkinson disease patients from Portugal for mutations in SNCA, PRKN, PINK1 and LRRK2. BMC Neurol 2008; 8(1): 1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2377-8-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18211709&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

8.  Brooks J, Ding J, Simon-Sanchez J, Paisan-Ruiz C, Singleton A, Scholz S. Parkin and PINK1 mutations in early-onset Parkinson’s disease: comprehensive screening in publicly available cases and control. J Med Genet 2009; 46(6): 375–81.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiam1lZGdlbmV0IjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjQ2LzYvMzc1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDUvMTgvMjAyMC4wNS4wNy4yMDA3MjcyOC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

9.  Brüggemann N, Klein C. Parkin type of early-onset Parkinson disease. GeneReviews®[lnternet]: University of Washington, Seattle; 2013.
    
    

10. Camacho JLG, Jaramillo NM, Gomez PY, Violante MR, Woehrlen CB, Vilatela MEA, et al. High frequency of Parkin exon rearrangements in Mexican - mestizo patients with early - onset Parkinson’s disease. Movement disorders 2012; 27(8): 1047–51.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.25030&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22777964&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

11. Camargos ST, Dornas LO, Momeni P, Lees A, Hardy J, Singleton A, et al. Familial Parkinsonism and early onset Parkinson’s disease in a Brazilian movement disorders clinic: Phenotypic characterization and frequency of SNCA, PRKN, PINK1, and LRRK2 mutations. Movement Disorders 2009; 24(5): 662–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.22365&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19205068&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000265625400004&link_type=ISI) 

12. Clark LN, Afridi S, Karlins E, Wang Y, Mejia-Santana H, Harris J, et al. Case-control study of the parkin gene in early-onset Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 2006; 63(4): 548–52.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneur.63.4.548&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16606767&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236813000011&link_type=ISI) 

13. Dawson TM, Dawson VL. The role of parkin in familial and sporadic Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2010; 25(S1): S32-S9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.22798&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20187240&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000276137000006&link_type=ISI) 

14. Fiala O, Zahorakova D, Pospisilova L, Kucerova J, Matejckova M, Martasek P, et al. Parkin (PARK 2) mutations are rare in Czech patients with early-onset Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One 2014; 9(9).
    
    

15. Gan-Or Z, Rao T, Leveille E, Degroot C, Chouinard S, Cicchetti F, et al. The Quebec Parkinson Network: A Researcher-Patient Matching Platform and Multimodal Biorepository. J Parkinsons Dis 2020; 10: 301–13.
    
    

16. Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, Lees AJ. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 1992; 55(3): 181–4.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI1NS8zLzE4MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA1LzE4LzIwMjAuMDUuMDcuMjAwNzI3MjguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

17. Huttenlocher J, Stefansson H, Steinberg S, Helgadottir HT, Sveinbjörnsdóttir S, Riess O, et al. Heterozygote carriers for CNVs in PARK2 are at increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. Hum Mol Genet 2015; 24(19): 5637–43.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/hmg/ddv277&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26188007&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

18. Kay D, Stevens C, Hamza T, Montimurro J, Zabetian C, Factor S, et al. A comprehensive analysis of deletions, multiplications, and copy number variations in PARK2. Neurology 2010; 75(13): 1189–94.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f4d832&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20876472&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

19. Kay DM, Moran D, Moses L, Poorkaj P, Zabetian CP, Nutt J, et al. Heterozygous parkin point mutations are as common in control subjects as in Parkinson’s patients. Ann Neurol 2007; 61(1): 47–54.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ana.21039&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17187375&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244028000010&link_type=ISI) 

20. Kilarski LL, Pearson JP, Newsway V, Majounie E, Knipe MDW, Misbahuddin A, et al. Systematic review and UK - based study of PARK2 (parkin), PINK1, PARK7 (DJ - 1) and LRRK2 in early - onset Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2012; 27(12): 1522–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.25132&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22956510&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

21. Klein C, Djarmati A, Hedrich K, Schäfer N, Scaglione C, Marchese R, et al. PINK1, Parkin, and DJ-1 mutations in Italian patients with early-onset parkinsonism. European journal of human genetics 2005; 13(9): 1086–93.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201455&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15970950&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231395500016&link_type=ISI) 

22. Kopanos C, Tsiolkas V, Kouris A, Chapple CE, Albarca Aguilera M, Meyer R, et al. VarSome: the human genomic variant search engine. Bioinformatics 2018; 35(11): 1978–80.
    
    

23. La Cognata V, Morello G, D’Agata V, Cavallaro S. Copy number variability in Parkinson’s disease: assembling the puzzle through a systems biology approach. Hum Genet 2017; 136(1): 13–37.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00439-016-1749-4&link_type=DOI) 

24. Lee S, Emond MJ, Bamshad MJ, Barnes KC, Rieder MJ, Nickerson DA, et al. Optimal unified approach for rare-variant association testing with application to small-sample case-control whole-exome sequencing studies. Am J Hum Genet 2012; 91(2): 224–37.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.06.007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22863193&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

25. Lee S, Teslovich TM, Boehnke M, Lin X. General framework for meta-analysis of rare variants in sequencing association studies. Am J Hum Genet 2013; 93(1): 42–53.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.05.010&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23768515&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

26. Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, Samocha KE, Banks E, Fennell T, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 2016; 536(7616): 285–91.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature19057&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27535533&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000381804900026&link_type=ISI) 

27. Lesage S, Lohmann E, Tison F, Durif F, Dürr A, Brice A, et al. Rare heterozygous parkin variants in French early-onset Parkinson disease patients and controls. J Med Genet 2008; 45(1): 43–6.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiam1lZGdlbmV0IjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjQ1LzEvNDMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wNS8xOC8yMDIwLjA1LjA3LjIwMDcyNzI4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

28. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009; 25(14): 1754–60.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19451168&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267665900006&link_type=ISI) 

29. Lincoln SJ, Maraganore DM, Lesnick TG, Bounds R, De Andrade M, Bower JH, et al. Parkin variants in North American Parkinson’s disease: cases and controls. Movement disorders: official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2003; 18(11): 1306–11.
    
    

30. Macedo MG, Verbaan D, Fang Y, van Rooden SM, Visser M, Anar B, et al. Genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of Dutch patients with early onset Parkinson’s disease. Movement disorders: official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2009; 24(2): 196–203.
    
    

31. Mata IF, Lockhart PJ, Farrer MJ. Parkin genetics: one model for Parkinson’s disease. Hum Mol Genet 2004; 13(suppl_1): R127-R33.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/hmg/ddh089&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14976155&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220793500013&link_type=ISI) 

32. McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, Sivachenko A, Cibulskis K, Kernytsky A, et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res 2010; 20(9): 1297–303.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ2Vub21lIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjIwLzkvMTI5NyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA1LzE4LzIwMjAuMDUuMDcuMjAwNzI3MjguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

33. Moura KCV, Campos Junior M, de Rosso ALZ, Nicaretta DH, Pereira JS, Silva DJ, et al. Genetic analysis of PARK2 and PINK1 genes in Brazilian patients with early-onset Parkinson’s disease. Dis Markers 2013; 35(3): 181–5.
    
    

34. Nalls MA, Blauwendraat C, Vallerga CL, Heilbron K, Bandres-Ciga S, Chang D, et al. Identification of novel risk loci, causal insights, and heritable risk for Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. The Lancet Neurology 2019; 18(12): 1091–102.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30320-5&link_type=DOI) 

35. Pagano G, Ferrara N, Brooks DJ, Pavese N. Age at onset and Parkinson disease phenotype. Neurology 2016; 86(15): 1400–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1212/WNL.0000000000002461&link_type=DOI) 

36. Pankratz N, Dumitriu A, Hetrick KN, Sun M, Latourelle JC, Wilk JB, et al. Copy number variation in familial Parkinson disease. PLoS One 2011; 6(8).
    
    

37. Plagnol V, Curtis J, Epstein M, Mok KY, Stebbings E, Grigoriadou S, et al. A robust model for read count data in exome sequencing experiments and implications for copy number variant calling. Bioinformatics 2012; 28(21): 2747–54.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/bts526&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22942019&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000310155300006&link_type=ISI) 

38. Postuma RB, Berg D, Stern M, Poewe W, Olanow CW, Oertel W, et al. MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2015; 30(12): 1591–601.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.26424&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26474316&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

39. Povysil G, Tzika A, Vogt J, Haunschmid V, Messiaen L, Zschocke J, et al. panelcn. MOPS: Copy - number detection in targeted NGS panel data for clinical diagnostics. Hum Mutat 2017; 38(7): 889–97.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/humu.23237&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

40. Robinson JT, Thorvaldsdóttir H, Winckler W, Guttman M, Lander ES, Getz G, et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nat Biotechnol 2011; 29(1): 24.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nbt.1754&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21221095&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000286048900013&link_type=ISI) 

41. Ross JP, Dupre N, Dauvilliers Y, Strong S, Ambalavanan A, Spiegelman D, et al. Analysis of DNAJC13 mutations in French-Canadian/French cohort of Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2016; 45: 212. e13-. e17.
    
    

42. Rudakou U, Ruskey JA, Krohn L, Laurent SB, Spiegelman D, Greenbaum L, et al. Analysis of common and rare VPS13C variants in late-onset Parkinson disease. Neurol Genet 2020; 6(1): 385.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoibm5nIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjYvMS8zODUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wNS8xOC8yMDIwLjA1LjA3LjIwMDcyNzI4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

43. Ruskey JA, Greenbaum L, Ronciere L, Alam A, Spiegelman D, Liong C, et al. Increased yield of full GBA sequencing in Ashkenazi Jews with Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Med Genet 2019; 62(1): 65–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.05.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

44. Sardi SP, Cedarbaum JM, Brundin P. Targeted therapies for Parkinson’s disease: from genetics to the clinic. Mov Disord 2018; 33(5): 684–96.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.27414&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29704272&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

45. Sardi SP, Simuni T. New Era in disease modification in Parkinson’s disease: Review of genetically targeted therapeutics. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2019; 59: 32–8.
    
    

46. Schneider SA, Alcalay RN. Neuropathology of genetic synucleinopathies with parkinsonism: Review of the literature. Mov Disord 2017a; 32(11): 1504–23.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.27193&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29124790&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

47. Schneider SA, Alcalay RN. Neuropathology of genetic synucleinopathies with parkinsonism: review of the literature. Mov Disord 2017b; 32(11): 1504–23.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mds.27193&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29124790&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

48. Schrag A, Quinn N, Ben-Shlomo Y. Heterogeneity of Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 2006; 77(2): 275–6.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI3Ny8yLzI3NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA1LzE4LzIwMjAuMDUuMDcuMjAwNzI3MjguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

49. Simon - Sanchez J, Scholz S, del Mar Matarin M, Fung HC, Hernandez D, Gibbs JR, et al. Genomewide SNP assay reveals mutations underlying Parkinson disease. Hum Mutat 2008; 29(2): 315–22.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/humu.20626&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17994548&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000253033000015&link_type=ISI) 

50. Sironi F, Primignani P, Zini M, Tunesi S, Ruffmann C, Ricca S, et al. Parkin analysis in early onset Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2008; 14(4): 326–33.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18519021&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

51. Spataro N, Roca - Umbert A, Cervera - Carles L, Vallès M, Anglada R, Pagonabarraga J, et al. Detection of genomic rearrangements from targeted resequencing data in Parkinson’s disease patients. Movement Disorders 2017; 32(1): 165–9.
    
    

52. Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38(16): e164-e.
    
    

53. Wang Y, Clark LN, Louis ED, Mejia-Santana H, Harris J, Cote LJ, et al. Risk of Parkinson disease in carriers of parkin mutations: estimation using the kin-cohort method. Arch Neurol 2008; 65(4): 467–74.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archneur.65.4.467&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18413468&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 

54. Wilier CJ, Li Y, Abecasis GR. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 2010; 26(17): 2190–1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btq340&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20616382&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F18%2F2020.05.07.20072728.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000281738900017&link_type=ISI) 

55. Yi W, MacDougall EJ, Tang MY, Krahn Al, Gan-Or Z, Trempe J-F, et al. The landscape of Parkin variants reveals pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic targets in Parkinson’s disease. Hum Mol Genet 2019; 28(17): 2811–25.
    
    

56. Zhao M, Wang Q, Wang Q Jia P, Zhao Z. Computational tools for copy number variation (CNV) detection using next-generation sequencing data: features and perspectives. BMC Bioinformatics 2013; 14(11): S1.