Dear Friends,
Two friends each said maybe I had no comments or responses because the
original title isn't really right. So I'm reposting with a different
title that they suggested...hope somehow it creates more talk on our list
about genes for pd. Hope it makes sense-writing it down for you was
really tricky!!
Ivan
^^^^^^WARM GREETINGS FROM^^^^^^^^^^
Ivan Suzman 48/10 [log in to unmask]
Portland, Maine land of lighthouses 56 deg F Viva El-Nin~o!!
***********************************************************
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 10:58:58 -0500 Judith Richards
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
"WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - German researchers said on Friday they
had found a second gene linked with Parkinson's disease, a serious and
incurable brain illness."
(SNIP)......
Dear LIstmembers,
I have always felt that true Young-Onset Parkinson's is very likely
of GENETIC origin. I have felt that it could be due either to (1) the
concurrent appearance of two recessive and rare genes, one from the
mother and one from the father, in the affected individual, or due (2) to
the appearance of a rare recessive gene on an X-chromosome, and would
tend to appear therefore more frequently in males, or (3) due to an
increased gene frequency, for whatever reason, in the localized, or
somewhat isolated, human breeding population, that includes the recent
ancestors of the person living with Young-Onset Parkinson's.
In my way of thinking, there is a possibility that a DIFFERENT
causative gene or set of genes may be involved in "Usual-Onset
Parkinson's." Much later in life, when Usual-Onset Parkinson's rears its
ugly head, Parkinson's could be caused by a gene or by several genes,
that have something to do with the normal aging process of the human
brain's dopamine-producing and transmitting cells.
. Like the Contursi family's celebrated genetic MUTATION, the one that
President Clinton's advisors must have thought (incorrectly) was "the
Parkinson's Gene," and which was the subject of many of our posts to the
list in January, and the basis of my February letter to him, today's
announcement on this German study, I feel, may possibly highlight another
instance of a rare MUTATION. That mutation might have created, at a
particularly vulnerable spot on human chromosome #2, a newly-dominant
gene, which might then be inherited, and passed along the generations of
a family.
The idea that a Parkinson's-like condition might also be brought on by
trauma (like ANESTHESIA), or by chemical poisoning (as is certainly the
situation in the MPTP-induced "Parkinson's" in drug-users), raises the
interesting question, to me, of whether there are TWO BASIC CAUSES of
Young-Onset Parkinson's. One might be genetic, and result in both an
elevated frequency of dopamine/adrenaline/insulin-related blood-sugar
disorders, in the immediate family of the person with Young-Onset
Parkinson's, as well as in dopamine-related Parkinson's-like symptoms,or
actual full-blown, recognizable dopamine-deficient Parkinson's disease,
in these younger persons.
The second type of Young-Onset Parkinson's, and also, Parkinson's-like
disorders, might be caused by either toxic, or by traumatic influences
from a person's environment, and would not be of genetic origins. Perhaps
this trauma-induced "Parkinson's" causes instantaneous destruction of
"controlling" genes that would normally regulate the body's chemical
processes that are dopamine-dependent,
Anyway, enough musings on the genetics of Parkinson's. I'm just one
amateur observer of the world of Parkinson's. Fellow listmembers, just
IMAGINE what a group of GENETICS RESEARCH TEAMS could do with MILLIONS
and MILLIONS of UDALL dollars, or francs or pounds or lira or yen...all
over the world.
We might not have to wait painfully and nearly endlessly for genetic
screening tests, blood tests, family counseling, much-improved drug
treatments, and much, much more! I believe that an infusion of research
on the "Genetic Factors" would yield ASTOUNDING results.
Hmm...$100,000,000.00 to spend on research.....hmmmm...Ivan's thinking
cap working overtime ....hmmmm...
Well, folks, thank you for following this ramble to its current
conlusion...WHAT DO YOU THINK??
As always,
Ivan Suzman 48/10
