Abstract
Molecular mechanisms of neuropsychiatric disorders are challenging to study in human brain. For decades, the preferred model has been to study postmortem human brain samples despite the limitations they entail. A recent study generated RNA sequencing data from biopsies of prefrontal cortex from living patients with Parkinson’s Disease and compared gene expression to postmortem tissue samples, from which they found vast differences between the two. This led the authors to question the utility of postmortem human brain studies. Through re-analysis of the same data, we unexpectedly found that the living brain tissue samples were of much lower quality than the postmortem samples across multiple standard metrics. We also performed simulations that illustrate the effects of ignoring RNA degradation in differential gene expression analyses, showing the effects can be substantial and of similar magnitude to what the authors find. For these reasons, we believe the authors’ conclusions are unjustified. To the contrary, while opportunities to study gene expression in the living brain are welcome, evidence that this eclipses the value of postmortem analyses is not apparent.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located from The Living Brain Project study available at Synapse (syn26337520): https://adknowledgeportal.synapse.org/Explore/Studies/DetailsPage/StudyDetails?Study=syn26337520. We also used data from the CommonMind Consortium described in detail previously (Fromer et al. 2016, Hoffman et al. 2022) and from a human brain RNA degradation experiment (Jaffe et al. 2017). See Data Availability Links.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All re-analysis results, re-processed LBP and qSVA datasets, and original datasets are available online at
https://github.com/LieberInstitute/living_brain_reanalysis
https://adknowledgeportal.synapse.org/Explore/Studies/DetailsPage?Study=syn26337520