Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurological condition that strikes an individual and gradually progresses, resulting in both motor and non-motor symptoms. The severity and progression of can be predicted by biochemical biomarkers, such as glial fibrillary acidic protein and degradation products, which are released into the cerebrospinal fluid and serum when astrocytes are injured. Accumulating evidence suggests that Tau protein plays a major role in the pathological mechanisms of Parkinson’s disease.Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the levels of Tau and human glial fibrillary acidic protein GFAP in patients with Parkinson's disease and subsequently compare them with those in the control group.Methods: This case-control study included 80 participants. The 80 participants were divided into four categories: G1, Control Male n=20; G2, Control Female n=20; G3, Parkinson Male patients’ n=20; and G4, Parkinson Female patients’ n=20. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to ascertain the quantities of pTau217 and GFAP. Total calcium was measured.Results: Results showed a significant decrease in 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the patient groups compared to the control groups. In addition, G3 showed a significant decrease compared to G1. G4 showed a significant decrease compared to G2. The results also showed a significant decrease in total calcium levels in G3 compared to G1, while a non-significant decrease was found in G4 compared to G2. Results showed a significant increase in pTau217 and GFAP in G3 and G4 compared to G1 and G2.Conclusions: Determining vitamin D levels in patients with Parkinson’s disease is important because deficiency is common and may worsen bone health, muscle strength, balance, and overall function. Testing allows appropriate supplementation and prevention of complications, particularly falls and fractures. The pTau217 and GFAP biomarkers could open new prospects for early diagnosis, monitoring the course of the disease, and personalized treatment strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al-Azawee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: