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
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.
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- 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).
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.
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/). We thank Daniel Rochefort, Helene Catoire, Clotilde Degroot and Vessela Zaharieva for their assistance.