Meta-analysis of genetic association with diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies novel risk loci and implicates Abeta, Tau, immunity and lipid processing

Introduction Late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (LOAD, onset age > 60 years) is the most prevalent dementia in the elderly 1 , and risk is partially driven by genetics 2 . Many of the loci responsible for this genetic risk were identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 3–8 . To identify additional LOAD risk loci, the we performed the largest GWAS to date (89,769 individuals), analyzing both common and rare variants. We confirm 20 previous LOAD risk loci and identify four new genome-wide loci ( IQCK , ACE , ADAM10 , and ADAMTS1 ). Pathway analysis of these data implicates the immune system and lipid metabolism, and for the first time tau binding proteins and APP metabolism. These findings show that genetic variants affecting APP and Aβ processing are not only associated with early-onset autosomal dominant AD but also with LOAD. Analysis of AD risk genes and pathways show enrichment for rare variants ( P = 1.32 × 10 −7 ) indicating that additional rare variants remain to be identified.ADGC. The National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (NIH-NIA) supported this work through the following grants: ADGC, U01 AG032984, RC2 AG036528; Samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease (NCRAD), which receives government support under a cooperative agreement grant (U24 AG21886) awarded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), were used in this study. We thank contributors who collected samples used in this study, as well as patients and their families, whose help and participation made this work possible; Data for this study were prepared, archived, and distributed by the National Institute on Aging Alzheimer’s Disease Data Storage Site (NIAGADS) at the University of Pennsylvania (U24-AG041689-01); NACC, U01 AG016976; NIA LOAD (Columbia University), U24 AG026395, U24 AG026390, R01AG041797; Banner Sun Health Research Institute P30 AG019610; Boston University, P30 AG013846, U01 AG10483, R01 CA129769, R01 MH080295, R01 AG017173, R01 AG025259, R01 AG048927, R01AG33193, R01 AG009029; Columbia University, P50 AG008702, R37 AG015473, R01 AG037212, R01 AG028786; Duke University, P30 AG028377, AG05128; Emory University, AG025688; Group Health Research Institute, UO1 AG006781, UO1 HG004610, UO1 HG006375, U01 HG008657; Indiana University, P30 AG10133, R01 AG009956, RC2 AG036650; Johns Hopkins University, P50 AG005146, R01 AG020688; Massachusetts General Hospital, P50 AG005134; Mayo Clinic, P50 AG016574, R01 AG032990, KL2 RR024151; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, P50 AG005138, P01 AG002219; New York University, P30 AG08051, UL1 RR029893, 5R01AG012101, 5R01AG022374, 5R01AG013616, 1RC2AG036502, 1R01AG035137; North Carolina A&T University, P20 MD000546, R01 AG28786-01A1; Northwestern University, P30 AG013854; Oregon Health & Science University, P30 AG008017, R01 AG026916; Rush University, P30 AG010161, R01 AG019085, R01 AG15819, R01 AG17917, R01 AG030146, R01 AG01101, RC2 AG036650, R01 AG22018; TGen, R01 NS059873; University of Alabama at Birmingham, P50 AG016582; University of Arizona, R01 AG031581; University of California, Davis, P30 AG010129; University of California, Irvine, P50 AG016573; University of California, Los Angeles, P50 AG016570; University of California, San Diego, P50 AG005131; University of California, San Francisco, P50 AG023501, P01 AG019724; University of Kentucky, P30 AG028383, AG05144; University of Michigan, P50 AG008671; University of Pennsylvania, P30 AG010124; University of Pittsburgh, P50 AG005133, AG030653, AG041718, AG07562, AG02365; University of Southern California, P50 AG005142; University of Texas Southwestern, P30 AG012300; University of Miami, R01 AG027944, AG010491, AG027944, AG021547, AG019757; University of Washington, P50 AG005136, R01 AG042437; University of Wisconsin, P50 AG033514; Vanderbilt University, R01 AG019085; and Washington University, P50 AG005681, P01 AG03991, P01 AG026276. The Kathleen Price Bryan Brain Bank at Duke University Medical Center is funded by NINDS grant # NS39764, NIMH MH60451 and by Glaxo Smith Kline. Support was also from the Alzheimer’s Association (LAF, IIRG-08-89720; MP-V, IIRG-05-14147), the US Department of Veterans Affairs Administration, Office of Research and Development, Biomedical Laboratory Research Program, and BrightFocus Foundation (MP-V, A2111048). P.S.G.-H. is supported by Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Genotyping of the TGEN2 cohort was supported by Kronos Science. The TGen series was also funded by NIA grant AG041232 to AJM and MJH, The Banner Alzheimer’s Foundation, The Johnnie B. Byrd Sr. Alzheimer’s Institute, the Medical Research Council, and the state of Arizona and also includes samples from the following sites: Newcastle Brain Tissue Resource (funding via the Medical Research Council, local NHS trusts and Newcastle University), MRC London Brain Bank for Neurodegenerative Diseases (funding via the Medical Research Council),South West Dementia Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Alzheimer’s Research Trust (ART), BRACE as well as North Bristol NHS Trust Research and Innovation Department and DeNDRoN), The Netherlands Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including Stichting MS Research, Brain Net Europe, Hersenstichting Nederland Breinbrekend Werk, International Parkinson Fonds, Internationale Stiching Alzheimer Onderzoek), Institut de Neuropatologia, Servei Anatomia Patologica, Universitat de Barcelona. ADNI data collection and sharing was funded by the National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904 and Department of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2-0012. ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: AbbVie, Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CereSpir, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; Fujirebio; GE Healthcare; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Lumosity; Lundbeck; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Neurotrack Technologies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; and Transition Therapeutics. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study at the University of California, San Diego. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern California. We thank Drs. D. Stephen Snyder and Marilyn Miller from NIA who are ex-officio ADGC members. EADI. This work has been developed and supported by the LABEX (laboratory of excellence program investment for the future) DISTALZ grant (Development of Innovative Strategies for a Transdisciplinary approach to ALZheimer’s disease) including funding from MEL (Metropole européenne de Lille), ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and Conseil Régional Nord Pas de Calais. This work was supported by INSERM, the National Foundation for Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders, the Institut Pasteur de Lille and the Centre National de Génotypage, the JPND PERADES, GENMED, and the FP7 AgedBrainSysBio. The Three-City Study was performed as part of collaboration between the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm), the Victor Segalen Bordeaux II University and Sanofi- Synthélabo. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also funded by the Caisse Nationale Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction Générale de la Santé, MGEN, Institut de la Longévité, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, the Aquitaine and Bourgogne Regional Councils, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR supported the COGINUT and COVADIS projects. Fondation de France and the joint French Ministry of Research/INSERM “Cohortes et collections de données biologiques” programme. Lille Génopôle received an unconditional grant from Eisai. The Three-city biological bank was developed and maintained by the laboratory for genomic analysis LAG-BRC - Institut Pasteur de Lille. This work was further supported by the CoSTREAM project (http://www.costream.eu/) and funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 667375. Belgium samples: Research at the Antwerp site is funded in part by the Belgian Science Policy Office Interuniversity Attraction Poles program, the Belgian Alzheimer Research Foundation, the Flemish government-initiated Flanders Impulse Program on Networks for Dementia Research (VIND) and the Methusalem excellence program, the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), and the University of Antwerp Research Fund, Belgium. The Antwerp site authors thank the personnel of the VIB Neuromics Support Facility, the Biobank of the Institute Born-Bunge and neurology departments at the contributing hospitals. The authors acknowledge the members of the BELNEU consortium for their contributions to the clinical and pathological characterization of Belgium patients and the personnel of the Diagnostic Service Facility for the genetic testing. Finish sample collection: Financial support for this project was provided by Academy of Finland (grant number 307866), Sigrid Jusélius Foundation and the Strategic Neuroscience Funding of the University of Eastern Finland. Swedish sample collection: Financially supported in part by the Swedish Brain Power network, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council (521-2010-3134, 2015-02926), the King Gustaf V and Queen Victoria’s Foundation of Freemasons, the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and the Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Brain Foundation and the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation”. CHARGE. Infrastructure for the CHARGE Consortium is supported in part by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant HL105756 (Psaty) and RC2HL102419 (Boerwinkle) and the neurology working group by grants from the National Institute on Aging, R01 AG033193, U01 AG049505 and U01AG52409. Rotterdam (RS). This study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) as part of the Joint Programming for Neurological Disease (JPND)as part of the PERADES Program (Defining Genetic Polygenic, and Environmental Risk for Alzheimer’s disease using multiple powerful cohorts, focused Epigenetics and Stem cell metabolomics), Project number 733051021. This work was funded also by the European Union Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) programme under grant agreement No. 115975 as part of the Alzheimer’s Disease Apolipoprotein Pathology for Treatment Elucidation and Development (ADAPTED, https://www.imi-adapted.eu);and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme as part of the Common mechanisms and pathways in Stroke and Alzheimer’s disease CoSTREAM project (www.costream.eu, grant agreement No. 667375). The current study is supported by the Deltaplan Dementie and Memorabel supported by ZonMW (Project number 733050814) and Alzheimer Nederland. The Rotterdam Study is funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands Organization for the Health Research and Development (ZonMw), the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (RIDE), the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports, the European Commission (DG XII), and the Municipality of Rotterdam. The authors are grateful to the study participants, the staff from the Rotterdam Study and the participating general practitioners and pharmacists. The generation and management of GWAS genotype data for the Rotterdam Study (RS-I, RS-II, RS-III) was executed by the Human Genotyping Facility of the Genetic Laboratory of the Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The GWAS datasets are supported by the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research NWO Investments (Project number 175.010.2005.011, 911-03-012), the Genetic Laboratory of the Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (014-93-015; RIDE2), the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging (NCHA), project number 050-060-810. We thank Pascal Arp, Mila Jhamai, Marijn Verkerk, Lizbeth Herrera and Marjolein Peters, MSc, and Carolina Medina-Gomez, MSc, for their help in creating the GWAS database, and Karol Estrada, PhD, Yurii Aulchenko, PhD, and Carolina Medina-Gomez, MSc, for the creation and analysis of imputed data. AGES. The AGES study has been funded by NIA contracts N01-AG-12100 and HHSN271201200022C with contributions from NEI, NIDCD, and NHLBI, the NIA Intramural Research Program, Hjartavernd (the Icelandic Heart Association), and the Althingi (the Icelandic Parliament). Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). This research was supported by contracts HHSN268201200036C, HHSN268200800007C, N01HC55222, N01HC85079, N01HC85080, N01HC85081, N01HC85082, N01HC85083, and N01HC85086 and grant U01HL080295 and U01HL130114 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), with additional contribution from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional support was provided by R01AG033193, R01AG023629, R01AG15928, and R01AG20098 and by U01AG049505 from the National Institute on Aging (NIA). The provision of genotyping data was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, CTSI grant UL1TR000124, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Diabetes Research Center (DRC) grant DK063491 to the Southern California Diabetes Endocrinology Research Center. A full list of CHS principal investigators and institutions can be found at https://chs-nhlbi.org/. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US National Institutes of Health. Framingham Heart Study. This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (contracts N01-HC-25195 and HHSN268201500001I). This study was also supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging: R01AG033193, U01AG049505, U01AG52409, R01AG054076 (S. Seshadri). S. Seshadri and A.L.D. were also supported by additional grants from the National Institute on Aging (R01AG049607, R01AG033040) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01- NS017950, NS100605). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US National Institutes of Health. GR@ACE cohort. Fundació ACE We would like to thank patients and controls who participated in this project. Genome Resesarch @ Fundació ACE project (GR@ACE) is supported by Fundación bancaria “La Caixa”, Grifols SA, Fundació ACE and ISCIII. We also want to thank other private sponsors supporting the basic and clinical projects of our institution (Piramal AG, Laboratorios Echevarne, Araclon Biotech S.A. and Fundació ACE). We are indebted to Trinitat Port-Carbó legacy and her family for their support of Fundació ACE research programs. Fundació ACE collaborates with the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobreEnfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED, Spain) and is one of the participating centers of the Dementia Genetics Spanish Consortium (DEGESCO). A.R. and M.B. are receiving support from the European Union/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking ADAPTED and MOPEAD projects (Grants No. 115975 and 115985 respectively). M.B. and A.R. are also supported by national grants PI13/02434, PI16/01861 and PI17/01474. Acción Estratégica en Salud integrated in the Spanish National R + D + I Plan and funded by ISCIII (Instituto de Salud Carlos III)-Subdirección General de Evaluación and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER- “Una manera de Hacer Europa”). Control samples and data from patients included in this study were provided in part by the National DNA Bank Carlos III (www.bancoadn.org, University of Salamanca, Spain) and Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme (Sevilla, Spain) and they were processed following standard operating procedures with the appropriate approval of the Ethical and Scientific Committee. GERAD/PERADES. We thank all individuals who participated in this study. Cardiff University was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Alzheimer’s Society (AS; grant RF014/164), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grants G0801418/1, MR/K013041/1, MR/L023784/1), the European Joint Programme for Neurodegenerative Disease (JPND, grant MR/L501517/1), Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK, grant ARUK-PG2014-1), Welsh Assembly Government (grant SGR544:CADR), a donation from the Moondance Charitable Foundation, and the UK Dementia Research Institute at Cardiff. Cambridge University acknowledges support from the MRC. ARUK supported sample collections at the Kings College London, the South West Dementia Bank, Universities of Cambridge, Nottingham, Manchester and Belfast. King’s College London was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health and Biomedical Research Unit for Dementia at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London and the MRC. Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK) and the Big Lottery Fund provided support to Nottingham University. Ulster Garden Villages, AS, ARUK, American Federation for Aging Research, NI R&D Office and the Royal College of Physicians/Dunhill Medical Trust provided support for Queen’s University, Belfast. The University of Southampton acknowledges support from the AS. The MRC and Mercer’s Institute for Research on Ageing supported the Trinity College group. DCR is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research fellow. The South West Dementia Brain Bank acknowledges support from Bristol Research into Alzheimer’s and Care of the Elderly. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust supported the OPTIMA group. Washington University was funded by NIH grants, Barnes Jewish Foundation and the Charles and Joanne Knight Alzheimer’s Research Initiative. Patient recruitment for the MRC Prion Unit/UCL Department of Neurodegenerative Disease collection was supported by the UCLH/UCL Biomed- ical Centre and their work was supported by the NIHR Queen Square Dementia BRU. LASER-AD was funded by Lundbeck SA. The Bonn group would like to thank Dr. Heike Koelsch for her scientific support. The Bonn group was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): Competence Network Dementia (CND) grant number 01GI0102, 01GI0711, 01GI0420. The AgeCoDe study group was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research grants 01 GI 0710, 01 GI 0712, 01 GI 0713, 01 GI 0714, 01 GI 0715, 01 GI 0716, 01 GI 0717. Genotyping of the Bonn case-control sample was funded by the German centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Germany. The GERAD Consortium also used samples ascertained by the NIMH AD Genetics Initiative. HH was supported by a grant of the Katharina-Hardt-Foundation, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany. The KORA F4 studies were financed by Helmholtz Zentrum München; German Research Center for Environmental Health; BMBF; German National Genome Research Network and the Munich Center of Health Sciences. The Heinz Nixdorf Recall cohort was funded by the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (Dr. Jur. G.Schmidt, Chairman) and BMBF. Coriell Cell Repositories is supported by NINDS and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging. We acknowledge use of genotype data from the 1958 Birth Cohort collection, funded by the MRC and the Wellcome Trust which was genotyped by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium and the Type-1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International. The Bonn samples are part of the German Dementia Competance Network (DCN) and the German Research Network on Degenerative Dementia (KNDD), which are funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grants KND: 01G10102, 01GI0420, 01GI0422, 01GI0423, 01GI0429, 01GI0431, 01GI0433, 04GI0434; grants KNDD: 01GI1007A, 01GI0710, 01GI0711, 01GI0712, 01GI0713, 01GI0714, 01GI0715, 01GI0716, 01ET1006B). Markus M Nothen is a member of the German Research Foundation (DFG) cluster of excellence ImmunoSensation. Funding for Saarland University was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), grant number 01GS08125 to Matthias Riemenschneider. The University of Washington was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01-NS085419 and R01-AG044546), the Alzheimer’s Association (NIRG-11-200110) and the American Federation for Aging Research (Carlos Cruchaga was recipient of a New Investigator Award in Alzhei

Polygenic risk and hazard scores for Alzheimer's disease prediction

OBJECTIVE: Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) have identified over 30 susceptibility loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using AD GWAS data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP), Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) was successfully applied to predict life time risk of AD development. A recently introduced Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS) is able to quantify individuals with age‐specific genetic risk for AD. The aim of this study was to quantify the age‐specific genetic risk for AD with PRS and compare the results generated by PRS with those from PHS. // METHODS: Quantification of individual differences in age‐specific genetic risk for AD identified by the PRS, was performed with Cox Regression on 9903 (2626 cases and 7277 controls) individuals from the Genetic and Environmental Risk in Alzheimer's Disease consortium (GERAD). Polygenic Hazard Scores were generated for the same individuals. The age‐specific genetic risk for AD identified by the PRS was compared with that generated by the PHS. This was repeated using varying SNPs P‐value thresholds for disease association. // RESULTS: Polygenic Risk Score significantly predicted the risk associated with age at AD onset when SNPs were preselected for association to AD at P ≤ 0.001. The strongest effect (B = 0.28, SE = 0.04, P = 2.5 × 10−12) was observed for PRS based upon genome‐wide significant SNPs (P ≤ 5 × 10−8). The strength of association was weaker with less stringent SNP selection thresholds. // INTERPRETATION: Both PRS and PHS can be used to predict an age‐specific risk for developing AD. The PHS approach uses SNP effect sizes derived with the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model. When SNPs were selected based upon AD GWAS case/control P ≤ 10−3, we found no advantage of using SNP effects sizes calculated with the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model in our study. When SNPs are selected for association with AD risk at P > 10−3, the age‐specific risk prediction results are not significant for either PRS or PHS. However PHS could be more advantageous than PRS of age specific AD risk predictions when SNPs are prioritized for association with AD age at onset (i.e., powerful Cox Regression GWAS study)

A novel Alzheimer disease locus located near the gene encoding tau protein

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the publisher via the DOI in this recordAPOE ε4, the most significant genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), may mask effects of other loci. We re-analyzed genome-wide association study (GWAS) data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP) Consortium in APOE ε4+ (10 352 cases and 9207 controls) and APOE ε4- (7184 cases and 26 968 controls) subgroups as well as in the total sample testing for interaction between a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and APOE ε4 status. Suggestive associations (P<1 × 10-4) in stage 1 were evaluated in an independent sample (stage 2) containing 4203 subjects (APOE ε4+: 1250 cases and 536 controls; APOE ε4-: 718 cases and 1699 controls). Among APOE ε4- subjects, novel genome-wide significant (GWS) association was observed with 17 SNPs (all between KANSL1 and LRRC37A on chromosome 17 near MAPT) in a meta-analysis of the stage 1 and stage 2 data sets (best SNP, rs2732703, P=5·8 × 10-9). Conditional analysis revealed that rs2732703 accounted for association signals in the entire 100-kilobase region that includes MAPT. Except for previously identified AD loci showing stronger association in APOE ε4+ subjects (CR1 and CLU) or APOE ε4- subjects (MS4A6A/MS4A4A/MS4A6E), no other SNPs were significantly associated with AD in a specific APOE genotype subgroup. In addition, the finding in the stage 1 sample that AD risk is significantly influenced by the interaction of APOE with rs1595014 in TMEM106B (P=1·6 × 10-7) is noteworthy, because TMEM106B variants have previously been associated with risk of frontotemporal dementia. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis revealed that rs113986870, one of the GWS SNPs near rs2732703, is significantly associated with four KANSL1 probes that target transcription of the first translated exon and an untranslated exon in hippocampus (P≤1.3 × 10-8), frontal cortex (P≤1.3 × 10-9) and temporal cortex (P≤1.2 × 10-11). Rs113986870 is also strongly associated with a MAPT probe that targets transcription of alternatively spliced exon 3 in frontal cortex (P=9.2 × 10-6) and temporal cortex (P=2.6 × 10-6). Our APOE-stratified GWAS is the first to show GWS association for AD with SNPs in the chromosome 17q21.31 region. Replication of this finding in independent samples is needed to verify that SNPs in this region have significantly stronger effects on AD risk in persons lacking APOE ε4 compared with persons carrying this allele, and if this is found to hold, further examination of this region and studies aimed at deciphering the mechanism(s) are warranted

Does Caffeine Consumption Modify Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid-β Levels in Patients with Alzheimer&apos;s Disease?

Caffeine may be protective against Alzheimer&apos;s disease (AD) by modulating amyloid-β (Aβ) metabolic pathways. The present work aimed to study a possible association of caffeine consumption with the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, particularly Aβ. The study included 88 patients with AD or mild cognitive impairment. The consumption of caffeine and theobromine was evaluated using a validated food questionnaire. Quantification of caffeine and main active metabolites was performed with liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. The levels of Aβ1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau in the CSF were determined using sandwich ELISA methods and other Aβ species, AβX-38, AβX-40, and AβX-42, with the MSD Aβ Triplex assay. The concentration of caffeine was 0.79±1.15 μg/mL in the CSF and 1.20±1.88 μg/mL in the plasma. No correlation was found between caffeine consumption and Aβ42 in the CSF. However, a significant positive correlation was found between the concentrations of theobromine, both in the CSF and in the plasma, with Aβ42 in the CSF. Theobromine in the CSF was positively correlated with the levels of other xanthines in the CSF, but not in the plasma, suggesting that it may be formed by central metabolic pathways. In conclusion, caffeine consumption does not modify the levels of CSF biomarkers, and does not require to be controlled for when measuring CSF biomarkers in a clinical setting. Since theobromine is associated with a favorable Aβ profile in the CSF, the possibility that it might have a protective role in AD should be further investigated. © 2015 - IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

Comparison of Different Matrices as Potential Quality Control Samples for Neurochemical Dementia Diagnostics

BACKGROUND: Assay-vendor independent quality control (QC) samples for neurochemical dementia diagnostics (NDD) biomarkers are so far commercially unavailable. This requires that NDD laboratories prepare their own QC samples, for example by pooling leftover cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. OBJECTIVE: To prepare and test alternative matrices for QC samples that could facilitate intra- and inter-laboratory QC of the NDD biomarkers. METHODS: Three matrices were validated in this study: (A) human pooled CSF, (B) Abeta peptides spiked into human prediluted plasma, and (C) Abeta peptides spiked into solution of bovine serum albumin in phosphate-buffered saline. All matrices were tested also after supplementation with an antibacterial agent (sodium azide). We analyzed short- and long-term stability of the biomarkers with ELISA and chemiluminescence (Fujirebio Europe, MSD, IBL International), and performed an inter-laboratory variability study. RESULTS: NDD biomarkers turned out to be stable in almost all samples stored at the tested conditions for up to 14 days as well as in samples stored deep-frozen (at - 80 degrees C) for up to one year. Sodium azide did not influence biomarker stability. Inter-center variability of the samples sent at room temperature (pooled CSF, freeze-dried CSF, and four artificial matrices) was comparable to the results obtained on deep-frozen samples in other large-scale projects. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that it is possible to replace self-made, CSF-based QC samples with large-scale volumes of QC materials prepared with artificial peptides and matrices. This would greatly facilitate intra- and inter-laboratory QC schedules for NDD measurements

Validation of a quantitative cerebrospinal fluid alpha-synuclein assay in a European-wide interlaboratory study

Item does not contain fulltextDecreased levels of alpha-synuclein (aSyn) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in Parkinson's disease and related synucleinopathies have been reported, however, not consistently in all cross-sectional studies. To test the performance of one recently released human-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the quantification of aSyn in CSF, we carried out a round robin trial with 18 participating laboratories trained in CSF ELISA analyses within the BIOMARKAPD project in the EU Joint Program - Neurodegenerative Disease Research. CSF samples (homogeneous aliquots from pools) and ELISA kits (one lot) were provided centrally and data reported back to one laboratory for data analysis. Our study showed that although factors such as preanalytical sample handling and lot-to-lot variability were minimized by our study design, we identified high variation in absolute values of CSF aSyn even when the same samples and same lots of assays were applied. We further demonstrate that although absolute concentrations differ between laboratories the quantitative results are comparable. With further standardization this assay may become an attractive tool for comparing aSyn measurements in diverse settings. Recommendations for further validation experiments and improvement of the interlaboratory results obtained are given

Prevalence of the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele in amyloid β positive subjects across the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease.

Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 is the major genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its prevalence is unclear because earlier studies did not require biomarker evidence of amyloid β (Aβ) pathology. We included 3451 Aβ+ subjects (853 AD-type dementia, 1810 mild cognitive impairment, and 788 cognitively normal). Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess APOE ε4 prevalence in relation to age, sex, education, and geographical location. The APOE ε4 prevalence was 66% in AD-type dementia, 64% in mild cognitive impairment, and 51% in cognitively normal, and it decreased with advancing age in Aβ+ cognitively normal and Aβ+ mild cognitive impairment (P &lt; .05) but not in Aβ+ AD dementia (P = .66). The prevalence was highest in Northern Europe but did not vary by sex or education. The APOE ε4 prevalence in AD was higher than that in previous studies, which did not require presence of Aβ pathology. Furthermore, our results highlight disease heterogeneity related to age and geographical location

Association of cerebral amyloid-β Aggregation with cognitive functioning in persons without dementia

IMPORTANCE Cerebral amyloid-β aggregation is an early event in Alzheimer disease (AD). Understanding the association between amyloid aggregation and cognitive manifestation in persons without dementia is important for a better understanding of the course of AD and for the design of prevention trials. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether amyloid-β aggregation is associated with cognitive functioning in persons without dementia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study included 2908 participants with normal cognition and 4133 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from 53 studies in the multicenter Amyloid Biomarker Study. Normal cognition was defined as having no cognitive concerns for which medical help was sought and scores within the normal range on cognitive tests. Mild cognitive impairment was diagnosed according to published criteria. Study inclusion began in 2013 and is ongoing. Data analysis was performed in January 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Global cognitive performance as assessed by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and episodic memory performance as assessed by a verbal word learning test. Amyloid aggregation was measured with positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and dichotomized as negative (normal) or positive (abnormal) according to study-specific cutoffs. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association between amyloid aggregation and low cognitive scores (MMSE score≤27 or memory z score≤-1.28) and to assess whether this association was moderated by age, sex, educational level, or apolipoprotein E genotype. RESULTS Among 2908 persons with normal cognition (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [12.8] years), amyloid positivity was associated with low memory scores after age 70 years (mean difference in amyloid positive vs negative, 4%[95%CI, 0%-7%] at 72 years and 21% [95%CI, 10%-33%] at 90 years) but was not associated with low MMSE scores (mean difference, 3%[95%CI, -1%to 6%], P = .16). Among 4133 patients with MCI (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [8.5] years), amyloid positivity was associated with low memory (mean difference, 16%[95%CI, 12%-20%], P &lt; .001) and low MMSE (mean difference, 14%[95%CI, 12%-17%], P &lt; .001) scores, and this association decreased with age. Low cognitive scores had limited utility for screening of amyloid positivity in persons with normal cognition and those with MCI. In persons with normal cognition, the age-related increase in low memory score paralleled the age-related increase in amyloid positivity with an intervening period of 10 to 15 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although low memory scores are an early marker of amyloid positivity, their value as a screening measure for early AD among persons without dementia is limited

Association of Cerebral Amyloid-β Aggregation With Cognitive Functioning in Persons Without Dementia.

Cerebral amyloid-β aggregation is an early event in Alzheimer disease (AD). Understanding the association between amyloid aggregation and cognitive manifestation in persons without dementia is important for a better understanding of the course of AD and for the design of prevention trials. To investigate whether amyloid-β aggregation is associated with cognitive functioning in persons without dementia. This cross-sectional study included 2908 participants with normal cognition and 4133 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from 53 studies in the multicenter Amyloid Biomarker Study. Normal cognition was defined as having no cognitive concerns for which medical help was sought and scores within the normal range on cognitive tests. Mild cognitive impairment was diagnosed according to published criteria. Study inclusion began in 2013 and is ongoing. Data analysis was performed in January 2017. Global cognitive performance as assessed by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and episodic memory performance as assessed by a verbal word learning test. Amyloid aggregation was measured with positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and dichotomized as negative (normal) or positive (abnormal) according to study-specific cutoffs. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association between amyloid aggregation and low cognitive scores (MMSE score ≤27 or memory z score≤-1.28) and to assess whether this association was moderated by age, sex, educational level, or apolipoprotein E genotype. Among 2908 persons with normal cognition (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [12.8] years), amyloid positivity was associated with low memory scores after age 70 years (mean difference in amyloid positive vs negative, 4% [95% CI, 0%-7%] at 72 years and 21% [95% CI, 10%-33%] at 90 years) but was not associated with low MMSE scores (mean difference, 3% [95% CI, -1% to 6%], P = .16). Among 4133 patients with MCI (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [8.5] years), amyloid positivity was associated with low memory (mean difference, 16% [95% CI, 12%-20%], P &lt; .001) and low MMSE (mean difference, 14% [95% CI, 12%-17%], P &lt; .001) scores, and this association decreased with age. Low cognitive scores had limited utility for screening of amyloid positivity in persons with normal cognition and those with MCI. In persons with normal cognition, the age-related increase in low memory score paralleled the age-related increase in amyloid positivity with an intervening period of 10 to 15 years. Although low memory scores are an early marker of amyloid positivity, their value as a screening measure for early AD among persons without dementia is limited