Glioblastomas (GBM) are lethal brain tumors where poor outcome is attributed to cellular heterogeneity, therapeutic resistance, and a highly infi ltrative nature. These characteristics are preferentially linked to GBM cancer stem cells (GSC), but how GSCs maintain their stemness is incompletely understood and the subject of intense investigation. Here, we identify a novel signaling loop that induces and maintains GSCs consisting of an atypical metalloproteinase, ADAMDEC1, secreted by GSCs. ADAMDEC1 rapidly solubilizes FGF2 to stimulate FGFR1 expressed on GSCs. FGFR1 signaling induces upregulation of ZEB1 via ERK1/2 that regulates ADAMDEC1 expression through miR-203, creating a positive feedback loop. Genetic or pharmacologic targeting of components of this axis attenuates self-renewal and tumor growth. These fi ndings reveal a new signaling axis for GSC maintenance and highlight ADAMDEC1 and FGFR1 as potential therapeutic targets in GBM. SIGNIFICANCE: Cancer stem cells (CSC) drive tumor growth in many cancers including GBM. We identifi ed a novel sheddase, ADAMDEC1, which initiates an FGF autocrine loop to promote stemness in CSCs. This loop can be targeted to reduce GBM growth.
Background Human genetics research lacks diversity; over 80% of genome‐wide association studies have been conducted on individuals of European ancestry. In addition to limiting insights regarding disease mechanisms, disproportionate representation can create disparities preventing equitable implementation of personalized medicine. Objective This systematic review provides an overview of research involving Parkinson's disease (PD) genetics in underrepresented populations (URP) and sets a baseline to measure the future impact of current efforts in those populations. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE until October 2021 using search strings for “PD,” “genetics,” the main “URP,” and and the countries in Latin America, Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand). Inclusion criteria were original studies, written in English, reporting genetic results on PD from non‐European populations. Two levels of independent reviewers identified and extracted information. Results We observed imbalances in PD genetic studies among URPs. Asian participants from Greater China were described in the majority of the articles published (57%), but other populations were less well studied; for example, Blacks were represented in just 4.0% of the publications. Also, although idiopathic PD was more studied than monogenic forms of the disease, most studies analyzed a limited number of genetic variants. We identified just nine studies using a genome‐wide approach published up to 2021, including URPs. Conclusion This review provides insight into the significant lack of population diversity in PD research highlighting the immediate need for better representation. The Global Parkinson's Genetics Program (GP2) and similar initiatives aim to impact research in URPs, and the early metrics presented here can be used to measure progress in the field of PD genetics in the future. © 2022 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Human genetics research lacks diversity; over 80% of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been conducted on individuals of European ancestry. In addition to limiting insights regarding disease mechanisms, disproportionate representation can create disparities preventing equitable implementation of personalized medicine. This systematic review provides an overview of research involving Parkinson's disease (PD) genetics in under-represented populations (URP), and sets a baseline to measure the future impact of current efforts in those populations. We searched PubMed and EMBASE until October 2021 using search strings for "PD", "genetics", the main "URP", and "lower-to-upper-middle-income countries". Inclusion criteria were original studies, written in English, reporting genetic results on PD patients from non-European populations. Two levels of independent reviewers identified and extracted relevant information. We observed considerable imbalances in PD genetic studies among URP. Asian participants from China were described in the majority of the articles published (61%), but other populations were less well studied, for example, Blacks were represented in just 4.0% of the publications. Also, although idiopathic PD was more studied than monogenic forms of the disease, most studies analyzed a limited number of genetic variants. We identified just seven studies using a genome-wide approach published up to 2021 including URP. This review provides insight into the significant lack of population diversity in PD research highlighting the urgent need for better representation. The Global Parkinson's Genetics Program (GP2) and similar initiatives aim to impact research in URP, and the early metrics presented here can be used to measure progress in the field of PD genetics in the future.
Background Parkinson's disease (PD) affects males more than females. The reasons for the gender differences in PD prevalence remain unclear. Objective The objective of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to update the overall male/female prevalence ratios (OPR). Methods We updated previous work by searching MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and OVID for articles reporting PD prevalence for both genders between 2011 and 2021. We calculated OPRs and investigated heterogeneity in effect estimates. Results We included 19 new articles and 13 articles from a previously published meta‐analysis. The OPR was 1.18, 95% CI, [1.03, 1.36]. The OPR was lowest in Asia and appeared to be decreasing over time. Study design, national wealth, and participant age did not explain OPR heterogeneity. Conclusion Gender differences in PD prevalence may not be as stark as previously thought. Studies are needed to understand the role of other determinants of gender differences in PD prevalence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.