Pathway-specific polygenic risk scores correlate with clinical status and Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2583037/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Pathway-specific polygenic risk scores correlate with clinical status and Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2583037/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 25 Sep, 2023

Read the published version in Journal of Alzheimer's Disease →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: APOE is the largest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but there is a substantial polygenic component as well. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) can summarize small effects across the genome but may obscure differential risk associated with different molecular processes and pathways. Variability at the genetic level may contribute to the extensive phenotypic heterogeneity of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Here, we examine polygenic risk impacting specific pathways associated with AD and examined its relationship with clinical status and AD biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration (A/T/N).

Methods: A total of 1,411 participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) with genotyping data were included. Sets of variants identified from a pathway analysis of AD GWAS summary statistics were combined into clusters based on their assigned pathway. We constructed pathway-specific PRSs for each participant and tested their associations with diagnostic status (AD vs cognitively normal), abnormal levels of amyloid and ptau (positive vs negative), and hippocampal volume. The APOE region was excluded from all PRSs, and analyses controlled for APOE-ε4 carrier status.

Results: Thirteen pathway clusters were identified relating to categories such as immune response, amyloid precursor processing, protein localization, lipid transport and binding, tyrosine kinase, and endocytosis. Eight pathway-specific PRSs were significantly associated with AD dementia diagnosis. Amyloid-positivity was associated with endocytosis and fibril formation, response misfolded protein, and regulation protein tyrosine PRSs. Ptau positivity and hippocampal volume were both related to protein localization and mitophagy PRS, and ptau positivity was additionally associated with an immune signaling PRS. A global AD PRS showed stronger associations with diagnosis and all biomarkers compared to pathway PRSs, suggesting a strong synergistic effect of all loci contributing to the global AD PRS.

Conclusions: Pathway PRS may contribute to understanding separable disease processes, but do not appear to add significant power for predictive purposes. These findings demonstrate that, although genetic risk for AD is widely distributed, AD-phenotypes may be preferentially associated with risk in specific pathways. Defining genetic risk along multiple dimensions at the individual level may help clarify the etiological heterogeneity in AD.

Alzheimer’s disease

dementia

genetic risk score

amyloid

tau

hippocampal volume

Alzheimer’s disease is known to be influenced by many genetically-mediated factors, with a heritability estimated to be 60–80% (1). Although autosomal dominant forms of AD are due to mutations in the APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 genes, sporadic or late onset Alzheimer’s disease has a more complex genetic basis. The APOE gene represents the single largest genetic risk factor (2), but over the past decade or so a number of additional AD risk genes have been discovered (3–6), with the most recent AD GWAS identifying 75 risk loci (7). Finding effective treatment for AD remains elusive, and there is increasing focus on its heterogenous presentation, both clinically and at the level of pathobiological mechanisms. Ultimately, identifying the sources of genetic risk for AD may not only shed light on the pathobiology of the disease but also lead to novel drug targets.

While large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) continue to identify specific risk loci, the polygenic nature of AD suggest the possibility that informative genetic signals may fall beneath the genome-wide significance thresholds. One approach to capturing these weak associations is to construct polygenic risk scores (PRSs) by taking the sum of all putative risk variants, defined broadly, weighted by their effect size from independent GWAS, assigning each individual a score, and then testing the association of this score with diagnosis and related phenotypes (8). For genetically complex diseases such as AD, PRSs have been shown to strengthen AD diagnostic classification beyond the use of APOE genotypes (9) and have further been shown to be associated with brain structure, Aβ and tau pathology, and cognitive decline (10–13). AD PRSs have also been shown to be associated with increased risk for mild cognitive impairment among individuals in their 50s (14), and have even been shown to be associated with brain structure in young adults (15, 16), demonstrating their utility across multiple age ranges.

A benefit of PRSs is that they provide a global summary measure that aggregates the large and small effect sizes of different variants across the genome. However, aggregating the effects of individual loci may obscure distinct sources of risk. One approach to overcome this limitation has been to calculate PRS with the APOE region removed to demonstrate effects of the APOE gene and APOE-independent variants (17–19). In this light, AD risk genes identified through GWAS have been associated with a number of pathways, such as immune function, cholesterol transport, mitochondrial function, protein-lipid complex, and endocytosis (4, 6, 7, 20, 21), and the APOE gene itself impacts a variety of processes (22). Two individuals may therefore have similar scores on a global PRS with very different risk associated with the underlying pathways that are perturbed as a result. It is well documented that AD demonstrates substantial heterogeneity with respect to its clinical presentation (23–25), but also in the distribution of associated pathology and atrophy. For example, potential subtypes have been identified using AD-related biomarkers, including those associated with amyloid (26), tau (27–30), and neurodegeneration (31–35).

Breaking down global AD PRS into pathway-specific PRSs may be one approach to better understand the etiology of AD and its heterogeneity. Several studies have examined pathway-specific PRS in the context of AD but have typically focused on associations with diagnostic status or considered only genome-wide significant variants (19, 36–39). However, previous studies have highlighted the importance of including larger numbers of variants, including those below the level of genome-wide significance in relevant analyses (9, 14). In addition, there is a growing interest in characterizing individuals based on AD-related pathology involving amyloid, tau and neurodegeneration (i.e., the A/T/N classification system) (40) that are also likely to have a polygenic basis. As a result, we have examined associations between pathway-specific PRS with dementia status and A/T/N biomarkers to better characterize genetic influences on each.

Participants

Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (adni.loni.usc.edu). The ADNI was launched in 2003 as a public-private partnership, led by Principal Investigator Michael W. Weiner, MD. The primary goal of ADNI has been to test whether serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), other biological markers, and clinical and neuropsychological assessment can be combined to measure the progression of MCI and early AD.

Our analyses included data on 1,411 participants from the ADNI-1 (n = 699), ADNI-GO/2 (n = 406), and ADNI-3 (n = 306) cohorts of European ancestry. The individuals in these cohorts had genome-wide genotype data that underwent rigorous quality control filters. Our analyses focused on cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and individuals with AD dementia according to baseline ADNI diagnosis in the cohorts. Procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of participating institutions and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Genotype data processing and imputation

Individuals in the ADNI cohorts were genotyped using the following chips: Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChip (ADNI-1), Illumina HumanOmniExpress BeadChip (ADNI-GO/2), and Illumina Infinium Global Screening Array v2 (ADNI-3). Genetic data for each chip were processed and underwent quality control separately using PLINK2 (41) prior to genotype imputation. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were excluded if minor allele frequency < 0.05, sample missingness > 5%, or showed significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p < 1x10e − 06). Samples with genotype missingness > 10% were excluded. Participants were restricted to those with primarily European ancestry (> 80%) as determined by SNPweights (42). Principal components were calculated from linkage disequilibrium (LD)-pruned variants in combination with 1000 Genomes data (43) for use as covariates in later analyses. Imputation was performed on the Michigan Imputation Server (https://imputationserver.sph.umich.edu/) (44) using the 1000 Genomes phase 3 EUR reference panel. Imputed data from all phases was then merged.

Identification of Alzheimer’s-related pathway clusters

A gene-set analysis of the IGAP2 Alzheimer’s disease GWAS summary statistics (4) was conducted with MAGMA v1.09a (45). SNPs were mapped to protein coding genes with a 35-kb upstream/10-kb downstream window. Gene sets from Gene Ontology (GO) (46, 47), Reactome (48) and KEGG (49) databases were downloaded from the Bader Lab website (http://baderlab.org/GeneSets). Analysis was restricted to gene sets containing 10 to 1,000 genes.

The resulting gene sets contain a high degree of redundancy, so we generated “pathway clusters” comprising gene sets with a high proportion of overlapping genes. First, the Cytoscape app EnrichmentMap v3.3 (50) was used to generate networks with gene sets as nodes and proportion of overlapping genes as edges. A gene set threshold of FDR q < 0.25 and overlap threshold of 0.5 were used as node and edge parameters, respectively. A permissive threshold was chosen to consider a broader set of potential risk pathways. Next, the AutoAnnotate app (http://baderlab.org/Software/AutoAnnotate) was used to cluster nodes with the MCL Cluster algorithm. Variants in genes belonging to a pathway cluster were used to calculate pathway-specific PRSs.

Pathway-specific polygenic risk scores

Pathway-specific PRSs were calculated based on summary statistic effect sizes from the (4) Alzheimer’s disease GWAS using the PRSet function in PRSice-2 v2.3.5 (51). Each pathway PRS was calculated from SNPs mapped to genes contained in each pathway cluster with a 35-kb upstream/10-kb downstream window. A global PRS considering all SNPs contained in the summary statistics was also calculated. Prior to scoring, SNPs with MAF < 0.01 and imputation quality R² < 0.5 were excluded from the analysis. LD clumping (r² threshold of 0.2 in a 500 kb window) based on LD patterns in the 1000 Genomes EUR cohort was used to restrict scoring to independent loci. To determine the effect of PRSs independent of APOE, the region surrounding the APOE genes was removed (chr19:45,116,911–46,318,605 according to GRCh37). All remaining SNPS (i.e., p < 1) were used in scoring.

Measures of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration

We explored associations between pathway-specific PRS and CSF and PET measures of amyloid and tau. We considered the results of CSF and PET measures as both are indicative of the presence of pathology, so we combined classifications from each to maximize the sample size for our analyses. Individuals were classified as Aβ and tau-positive based on having abnormal levels from at least one CSF or PET measure at a given data collection timepoint (e.g., a classification of Aβ + could be based on abnormal levels of amyloid from either a CSF or PET assessment, or both).

Aβ and p-tau CSF samples were collected on cohort participants and processed as previously described (52). CSF Aβ₄₂ and p-tau were measured with the fully automated Elecsys immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics) by the ADNI biomarker core (University of Pennsylvania). Established cutoffs designed to maximize sensitivity in the ADNI study population were used to classify biomarker positivity [Aβ+: Aβ₄₂ < 977 pg/mL; p-tau+: p-tau > 21.8 pg/mL] (http://adni.loni.usc.edu/methods) (53).

Aβ and tau PET data were processed according to previously published methods (http://adni.loni.usc.edu/methods) (54, 55). For Aβ, mean standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) were created from a set of regions including frontal, temporal, parietal and cingulate cortices using whole cerebellum (florbetapir) or cerebellar gray matter (PIB) as a reference region. We used established cutoffs to determine Aβ-positivity for PIB-PET (SUVR > 1.44), florbetapir-PET (SUVR > 1.11), and florbetaben-PET (SUVR > 1.08) (54, 56). Partial-volume corrected flortaucipir (AV-1451) tau PET SUVRs were created from a meta-temporal region of interest that included amygdala, entorhinal cortex, fusiform gyrus, inferior temporal gyrus, and middle temporal gyrus regions using inferior cerebellar gray matter as a reference region. A cut-off of SUVR > 1.78 was used to define tau-PET positivity (57).

Neurodegeneration was indexed by the ratio of hippocampal volume to intracranial volume. As there is no established cut-off for abnormal hippocampal volume, this was used as a continuous measure in all analyses.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted with R v 4.2.1 (58). Differences in demographic variables were tested with t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables. Associations with baseline diagnostic status restricted to cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants and those with dementia at their baseline visit and were tested using logistic regressions with diagnosis (CU vs dementia) as outcome. Associations with A/T/N biomarkers included participants of all diagnostic categories and used the first timepoint at which biomarker measures from all three categories were available. For amyloid and tau, our logistic regression models took biomarker abnormality status (positive vs negative) as the dependent or outcome measure of interest. For hippocampal volume, linear regression used the ratio of hippocampal volume to ICV as the outcome. Magnet field strength was also included as a covariate in analyses of hippocampal volume. Separate models were run with each PRS as predictor. The effect of APOE was assessed by including number of APOE-ε4 alleles (0, 1, or 2) as a separate variable. Models additionally included age, gender, and the first three principal components of the ADNI cohort genetic relationship matrix to control for any cryptic population stratification (59). Several post-hoc analyses were run to provide additional context to the PRS effect. Participants were stratified by APOE-ε4 into carriers and non-carriers, and PRS effects were tested separately in each group. Differences between these groups were directly tested with an interaction between APOE-ε4 carrier status and pathway PRS. To determine whether pathway-specific PRS in aggregate would increase predictive power, we fit models for each outcome (i.e., clinical status and biomarker abnormality) that included all pathway-specific PRS in the same model. The fit of these models were compared to models that included only the global PRS using Vuong’s likelihood ratio test (60). We corrected for multiple comparisons using Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR)-adjustment (61).

Pathway analysis

The results of MAGMA analysis of the Alzheimer’s GWAS summary statistics suggested that several pathways were significantly enriched among associated variants – all surviving FDR correction for multiple comparisons (Supplementary Table S1). These included negative regulation of amyloid precursor protein catabolic process (GO:1902992), regulation of aspartic-type peptidase activity (GO:1905245), negative regulation of cellular component organization (GO:0051129), negative regulation of amyloid-beta formation (GO:1902430), and regulation of humoral immune response mediated by circulating immunoglobulin (GO:0002923). A number of other genesets were nominally significant (p < 0.05, uncorrected) and those with FDR q < 0.25 were included in clustering (Supplementary Table S1). Clustering yielded 13 pathway clusters: protein localization (including regulation of amyloid-beta and tau protein kinase activity), cholesterol transport, amyloid protein processing, immune signaling, inflammatory response (including microglial activation), endocytosis and fibril regulation, humoral immune response (including regulation of complement activation), receptor metabolic process, responses to misfolded protein, phototransduction, regulation of cell junction assembly, regulation of protein tyrosine, and mitophagy. Variants in the enriched pathways were used to construct the pathway-specific PRS. Supplementary Table S2 lists the gene sets included in each of the pathway clusters.

Associations with diagnostic status

Sample characteristics of participants included in the analysis of diagnostic status are listed in Table 1, and full results are shown in Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table S3. In models including PRS and APOE-ε4 status, a higher global PRS (β = 1.91, t-value = 11.01, p < 0.001) and number of APOE-ε4 alleles (β = 0.94, t-value = 8.60, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with an Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis. Eight of the 13 pathway PRSs were significantly associated with diagnostic status after correction for multiple comparisons. These included: protein localization, cholesterol transport, amyloid protein processing, immune signaling, endocytosis and fibril regulation, regulation cell junction, regulation protein tyrosine, and mitophagy. When examining APOE-ε4 non-carriers only, results were similar except that cholesterol transport and regulation protein tyrosine were no longer significant whereas the receptor metabolic process PRS went from non-significant to significant. In APOE-ε4 carriers, only the global, regulation cell junction, and regulation protein tyrosine PRSs were significant. The effects of the global PRS (β=-0.54, t-value=-2.10, p = 0.035) and protein localization PRS (β=-0.45, t-value=-2.41, p = 0.016) were significantly weaker in APOE-ε4 carriers than non-carriers, whereas the phototransduction PRS was stronger in APOE-ε4 carriers (β = 0.39, t-value = 2.17, p = 0.030). However, these did not survive correction for multiple comparisons.

Table 1

Characteristics of sample used to test associations with diagnostic status.
	Cognitively Unimpaired	Dementia
n	536	214
Gender (Male), n (%)	258 (48.1)	122 (57.0)
Age, mean (SD)	73.49 (5.98)	75.46 (8.11)
Years of education, mean (SD)	16.56 (2.50)	15.11 (2.96)
APOE-ε4 carrier, n (%)	161 (30.0)	143 (66.8)

Associations with amyloid positivity

Sample characteristics of participants included in the analysis of biomarkers are listed in Table 2, and full results of the associations with amyloid positivity are shown in Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table S4. In models including PRS and APOE-ε4 status, a higher global PRS (β = 0.45, t-value = 4.21, p < 0.001) and number of APOE-ε4 alleles (β = 1.14, t-value = 9.18, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with amyloid positivity. Three of the 13 pathway PRSs were significantly associated with amyloid status after correction for multiple comparisons. These included: endocytosis and fibril regulation, response misfolded protein, and regulation protein tyrosine. When examining APOE-ε4 non-carriers only, the global PRS as well as the endocytosis and fibril regulation PRS were significant. In APOE-ε4 carriers, only the global and regulation protein tyrosine PRSs were significant. The effect of the regulation protein tyrosine PRS was significantly stronger in APOE-ε4 carriers than non-carriers (β = 0.52, t-value = 2.55, p = 0.010), but this did not survive correction for multiple comparisons.

Table 2

Characteristics of sample used to test associations with biomarker measures. CU = cognitively unimpaired, MCI = mild cognitive impairment. Hippocampal volume ratio was calculated as (Hippocampal volume / Intracranial volume)*100.
	Biomarker sample
n	674
Gender, n Male (%)	387 (57.4)
Age, mean (SD)	73.77 (7.36)
Years of education, mean (SD)	15.97 (2.76)
APOE-ε4 carrier, n (%)	300 (44.5)
Diagnosis, n (5)
CU	200 (29.7)
MCI	373 (55.3)
Dementia	101 (15.0)
Amyloid positive, n (%)	430 (63.8)
Ptau positive, n (%)	382 (56.7)
Hippocampal volume ratio, mean (SD)	0.44 (0.08)

Associations with tau positivity

Full results of the associations with tau positivity are shown in Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table S5. In models including PRS and APOE-ε4 status, a higher global PRS (β = 0.43, t-value = 4.25, p < 0.001) and number of APOE-ε4 alleles (β = 0.62, t-value = 6.63, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with tau positivity. Three of the 13 pathway PRSs were significantly associated with tau status after correction for multiple comparisons. These included: protein localization, immune signaling, and mitophagy. When examining APOE-ε4 non-carriers only, results were similar except that the mitophagy PRS was no longer significant, whereas the inflammatory response PRS became significant. In APOE-ε4 carriers, neither the global PRS nor any of the pathway PRSs were significant. The effect of the immune signaling PRS was significantly weaker in APOE-ε4 carriers than non-carriers (β=-0.66, t-value=-3.72, p < 0.001), but this did not survive correction for multiple comparisons.

Associations with hippocampal volume

Full results of the associations with hippocampal volume are shown in Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table S6. In models including PRS and APOE-ε4 status, a higher global PRS (β=-0.26, t-value=-6.88, p < 0.001) and number of APOE-ε4 alleles (β=-0.24, t-value=-6.98, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with smaller hippocampal volume. Two of the 13 pathway PRSs were significantly associated with tau status after correction for multiple comparisons. These included: protein localization and mitophagy. When examining APOE-ε4 non-carriers only, the global PRS and mitophagy PRS were significant. In APOE-ε4 carriers, only the global PRS was significant. The PRS effects were not significantly different between APOE-ε4 carrier and non-carriers.

The current results support and extend previous work disentangling the biological pathways contributing to Alzheimer’s disease risk and pathogenesis. Consistent with previous findings, we found that a global AD PRS was significantly associated with diagnostic status, amyloid and tau positivity, and hippocampal volume (9–13, 15, 17). The global AD PRS captures the combined effects of multiple separable influences on disease risk and therefore is not useful for teasing apart genetically-mediated etiological differences among individuals. Several studies have examined the relationship of AD diagnosis or AD-related biomarkers with pathway-specific PRS calculated from GWAS-significant SNPs (36, 37, 39). Here, we generated pathway-specific PRSs from clusters of gene sets and SNPs with association strength p-values falling below the threshold of GWAS significance. Breaking down the global effects of polygenic factors into more refined genetic pathway-associated subset of polygenes has been shown to provide useful information above-and-beyond variants with more pronounced effects arising from GWAS for certain conditions, including AD and MCI (8, 9, 14).

As expected, most of the pathway PRSs associated with AD diagnostic status in the current study correspond to pathways that have consistently been uncovered in previous GWAS. These pathways include amyloid precursor processing, immune and microglial response, endocytosis, cholesterol transport, lipid-protein complex and amyloid clearance (4, 6, 7, 21). Several pathways of focus in our study, however, had less support from other GWAS, but have nonetheless been linked to AD in yet other studies. For example, the regulation cell junction and regulation protein tyrosine pathway-specific PRS we considered may capture effects of genes involved in synaptic functioning and cell signaling, consistent with studies suggesting this pathway is involved in AD-related cognitive decline (62, 63). In addition, mitochondrial function has been proposed as playing a key role in the development of AD (64, 65), and mitophagy in particular may have widespread impacts on age-related disease, including Alzheimer’s disease (66). Our results are also consistent with studies that have examined the association of pathway-specific PRS with AD diagnosis, including Aβ clearance, cholesterol transport, immune response, and endocytosis (19, 36, 37, 39)

Amyloid positivity was significantly associated with pathway-specific PRS for endocytosis and fibril regulation, response to misfolded proteins, and regulation of protein tyrosine. The pathways associated with these PRSs are involved in the production, trafficking and clearance of Aβ peptides, as well as their aggregation into fibrils, which has biological plausibility. The endocytic pathway plays a key role in the amyloidogenic processing of APP as it is internalized to the intracellular space followed by cleavage into Aβ in the early endosome (67, 68). Tyrosine kinases may be involved in both the trafficking of APP and upregulating BACE activity (69, 70). In addition, genes encompassed by the response misfolded protein PRS that we find associated with AD pathology, include molecular chaperones (e.g., CLU) and the ubiquitin-proteasome system, which mediate degradation of abnormal and misfolded proteins (71–73). A previous study examining pathway-PRS found that PRS related to Aβ clearance and cholesterol metabolism were also related to CSF and PET measures of amyloid; however, these scores only included GWAS-significant variants and the effects were primarily driven by APOE (37).

We also found that tau positivity was significantly associated with pathway PRSs for protein localization, immune signaling, and mitophagy. The protein localization pathway includes tau protein kinase activity, which may relate to abnormal hyperphosphorylation of tau (74). Sun et al. (75) also found that a PRS reflecting the tau kinase activity was associated with CSF and PET measures of tau. Tau binds to microtubules to provide stabilization, but detaches when phosphorylated which can reduce axonal integrity and disrupt protein transport along the cytoskeleton (76). Additionally, this unbound phosphorylated tau can aggregate into neurofibrillary tangles (77). Regarding the PRS reflecting immune signaling, although inflammation can be secondary to abnormal tau, there is also evidence for an upstream role of glial activation and neuroinflammation in driving the accumulation and spread of tau (78, 79). This is consistent with a previous finding that a PRS constructed from only GWAS significant variants related to immune response was associated with CSF tau (37). As with inflammation, disruptions to mitophagy may be secondary to disease processes, but there is evidence for upstream roles of mitochondrial function, including mitophagy, in the development of AD pathology (65, 80). Hippocampal volume was also associated with pathway PRSs for protein localization and mitophagy. Shared pathways with tau positivity and may reflect the tighter linkage between neurodegeneration and tau compared to amyloid (81, 82).

Our results are generally consistent with those of a recent GWAS on CSF measures of amyloid and tau (83). The authors found little overlap in the loci associated with amyloid and tau aside from APOE. In contrast, there was overlap between loci associated with tau and ventricular volume, which can be used as an indicator of neurodegeneration. The authors also examined associations of AD-associated variants with CSF amyloid and tau, and a cluster analysis pursued by them identified patterns that were broadly similar to our own. For example, variants associated with CSF amyloid were associated with amyloid processing, endocytosis, and tyrosine kinase, whereas variants associated with CSF tau were linked to the immune system. Deriving PRSs based on GWAS of AD biomarkers represents a promising approach to index risk in specific pathways, but sample sizes for such studies are relatively small. PRSs based on pathway analysis of diagnosis-based GWAS are therefore a useful alternative that can leverage large case-control datasets to provide converging information.

Although we focused on APOE-independent sources of AD risk, it is important to note that the number of APOE-ε4 alleles had a comparable or even stronger (in the case of amyloid) effect on the outcomes as the polygenic component indexed with a PRS. APOE belonged to gene sets that were part of several cluster, including endocytosis and fibril regulation, protein localization, cholesterol transport, and amyloid protein processing. The variants falling within the APOE region were excluded from our PRSs, but this does suggest APOE can exert an impact through multiple routes. Stratifying based on APOE-ε4 carrier status suggested stronger effects of pathway PRSs on tau positivity in non-carriers. It may be that smaller polygenic effects are obscured in the presence of a larger APOE-related signal. Alternatively, APOE-ε4 may be sufficient to increase risk for tau pathology whereas those lacking this risk allele require additional sources of risk to develop abnormal levels of tau.

There are several additional items worth mentioning to put our analyses into context. First, we find evidence that the effect size of the global PRS is much larger than any pathway-specific PRS effect sizes in our analyses. While pathway-specific PRSs may be beneficial for understanding disease etiology, they do not appear to add predictive power when considered in the aggregate over-and-above the global PRS. Second, we mapped SNPs to genes using the standard position-based approach available in MAGMA. However, many GWAS SNPs are located in non-coding regions and may be associated with disease risk through their gene regulatory effects (84). Thus, approaches that make use of information such as chromatin interactions (85) or expression quantitative trait loci (86) to determine which gene a variant present in a non-coding region affects may prove useful in developing pathway-specific PRS. Third, genes/SNPs may be part of multiple pathway clusters, so the pathway PRSs are not entirely independent with each other. Fourth, we added interactions with diagnosis to all biomarker models to determine whether PRS associations differed by group. However, no interaction terms were significant after correcting for multiple comparisons and there did not appear to be a consistent pattern among the few interactions that reached nominal significant. Finally, this analysis required choices of parameters at various steps, such as the p-value thresholds used to filter variants and gene sets, method used to construct PRS, and even which gene sets were used. We believe our choices represent a reasonable attempt to capture the broad sources of polygenic influence on AD risk while minimizing unrelated signal. However, alternative approaches may be equally valid and should be determined by the context of a given analysis.

Ultimately, we find evidence that some pathway-specific PRSs are associated with AD diagnostic status and A/T/N biomarkers. Our findings indicate that genetic risk for AD may exist along multiple dimensions, and the distribution of risk across pathways may influence phenotypic manifestations of the disease. Although a global PRS appears to provide superior predictive power overall, pathway-specific PRS analysis may help clarify aspects of the heterogeneity of AD pathogenesis.

Alzheimer’s disease

ADNI

Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

A/T/N

amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration

CSF

cerebro-spinal fluid

cognitively unimpaired

FDR

false discovery rate

GWAS

genome-wide association studies

Linkage disequilibrium

MCI

mild cognitive impairment

MAF

minor allele frequency

MRI

magnetic resonance imaging

PET

positron emission tomography

PRS

polygenic risk score

SNP

Single nucleotide polymorphisms

SUVR

Standardized uptake value ratio

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of participating ADNI institutions and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Data used in this article can be downloaded from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database at adni.loni.usc.edu.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by National Institute on Aging grants: K01 AG063805 (JAE), UH3-AG064706 (NJS), U19 AG023122 (NJS), U19 AG065169-01A1 (NJS) and U24AG078753 (NJS).

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institute on Aging K01 AG063805. NJS is supported in part by NIH (NIA) grants: UH3-AG064706, U19 AG023122, U19 AG065169-01A1 and U24AG078753. Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904) and DOD ADNI (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.; Cogstate; 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 Therapeutic Research Institute at the University of Southern California. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern California.

The funding agencies had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Authors’ Contributions

The study was designed by JAE and NJS. JAE performed data analysis. JAE and NJS provided data interpretation and prepared the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Gatz M, Reynolds CA, Fratiglioni L, Johansson B, Mortimer JA, Berg S, et al. Role of genes and environments for explaining Alzheimer disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(2):168–74.
Corder EH, Saunders AM, Strittmatter WJ, Schmechel DE, Gaskell PC, Small GW, et al. Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer's disease in late onset families. Science. 1993;261(5123):921–3.
Harold D, Abraham R, Hollingworth P, Sims R, Gerrish A, Hamshere ML, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and PICALM associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet. 2009;41(10):1088–93.
Kunkle BW, Grenier-Boley B, Sims R, Bis JC, Damotte V, Naj AC, et al. Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer's disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Abeta, tau, immunity and lipid processing. Nat Genet. 2019;51(3):414–30.
Lambert JC, Ibrahim-Verbaas CA, Harold D, Naj AC, Sims R, Bellenguez C, et al. Meta-analysis of 74,046 individuals identifies 11 new susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet. 2013;45(12):1452–8.
Jansen IE, Savage JE, Watanabe K, Bryois J, Williams DM, Steinberg S, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies new loci and functional pathways influencing Alzheimer's disease risk. Nat Genet. 2019.
Bellenguez C, Küçükali F, Jansen IE, Kleineidam L, Moreno-Grau S, Amin N, et al. New insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. Nature Genetics. 2022.
International Schizophrenia C, Purcell SM, Wray NR, Stone JL, Visscher PM, O'Donovan MC, et al. Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature. 2009;460(7256):748–52.
Escott-Price V, Sims R, Bannister C, Harold D, Vronskaya M, Majounie E, et al. Common polygenic variation enhances risk prediction for Alzheimer's disease. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 12):3673–84.
Louwersheimer E, Wolfsgruber S, Espinosa A, Lacour A, Heilmann-Heimbach S, Alegret M, et al. Alzheimer's disease risk variants modulate endophenotypes in mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12(8):872–81.
Da X, Toledo JB, Zee J, Wolk DA, Xie SX, Ou Y, et al. Integration and relative value of biomarkers for prediction of MCI to AD progression: spatial patterns of brain atrophy, cognitive scores, APOE genotype and CSF biomarkers. Neuroimage Clin. 2014;4:164–73.
Kauppi K, Ronnlund M, Nordin Adolfsson A, Pudas S, Adolfsson R. Effects of polygenic risk for Alzheimer's disease on rate of cognitive decline in normal aging. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10(1):250.
Hannon E, Shireby GL, Brookes K, Attems J, Sims R, Cairns NJ, et al. Genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease influences neuropathology via multiple biological pathways. Brain Communications. 2020;2(2).
Logue MW, Panizzon MS, Elman JA, Gillespie NA, Hatton SN, Gustavson DE, et al. Use of an Alzheimer's disease polygenic risk score to identify mild cognitive impairment in adults in their 50s. Mol Psychiatry. 2019;24(3):421–30.
Mormino EC, Sperling RA, Holmes AJ, Buckner RL, De Jager PL, Smoller JW, et al. Polygenic risk of Alzheimer disease is associated with early- and late-life processes. Neurology. 2016;87(5):481–8.
Walhovd KB, Fjell AM, Sørensen Ø, Mowinckel AM, Reinbold CS, Idland A-V, et al. Genetic risk for Alzheimer disease predicts hippocampal volume through the human lifespan. Neurology Genetics. 2020;6(5):e506.
Ge T, Sabuncu MR, Smoller JW, Sperling RA, Mormino EC, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging I. Dissociable influences of APOE epsilon4 and polygenic risk of AD dementia on amyloid and cognition. Neurology. 2018;90(18):e1605-e12.
Mattsson N, Eriksson O, Lindberg O, Schöll M, Lampinen B, Nilsson M, et al. Effects of APOE ε4 on neuroimaging, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and cognition in prodromal Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of Aging. 2018;71:81–90.
Leonenko G, Shoai M, Bellou E, Sims R, Williams J, Hardy J, et al. Genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease is distinct from genetic risk for amyloid deposition. Ann Neurol. 2019;0(0).
Seto M, Weiner RL, Dumitrescu L, Hohman TJ. Protective genes and pathways in Alzheimer's disease: moving towards precision interventions. Mol Neurodegener. 2021;16(1):29.
Sims R, Hill M, Williams J. The multiplex model of the genetics of Alzheimer's disease. Nat Neurosci. 2020;23(3):311–22.
Fernandez-Calle R, Konings SC, Frontinan-Rubio J, Garcia-Revilla J, Camprubi-Ferrer L, Svensson M, et al. APOE in the bullseye of neurodegenerative diseases: impact of the APOE genotype in Alzheimer's disease pathology and brain diseases. Mol Neurodegener. 2022;17(1):62.
Scheltens NME, Tijms BM, Koene T, Barkhof F, Teunissen CE, Wolfsgruber S, et al. Cognitive subtypes of probable Alzheimer's disease robustly identified in four cohorts. Alzheimers Dement. 2017.
Graff-Radford J, Yong KXX, Apostolova LG, Bouwman FH, Carrillo M, Dickerson BC, et al. New insights into atypical Alzheimer's disease in the era of biomarkers. The Lancet Neurology. 2021;20(3):222–34.
Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, Hampel H, Molinuevo JL, Blennow K, et al. Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(6):614–29.
Collij LE, Salvado G, Wottschel V, Mastenbroek SE, Schoenmakers P, Heeman F, et al. Spatial-Temporal Patterns of beta-Amyloid Accumulation: A Subtype and Stage Inference Model Analysis. Neurology. 2022;98(17):e1692-e703.
Vogel JW, Young AL, Oxtoby NP, Smith R, Ossenkoppele R, Strandberg OT, et al. Four distinct trajectories of tau deposition identified in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature Medicine. 2021.
Ossenkoppele R, Schonhaut DR, Scholl M, Lockhart SN, Ayakta N, Baker SL, et al. Tau PET patterns mirror clinical and neuroanatomical variability in Alzheimer's disease. Brain. 2016;139(Pt 5):1551–67.
Young CB, Winer JR, Younes K, Cody KA, Betthauser TJ, Johnson SC, et al. Divergent Cortical Tau Positron Emission Tomography Patterns Among Patients With Preclinical Alzheimer Disease. JAMA Neurol. 2022.
Murray ME, Graff-Radford NR, Ross OA, Petersen RC, Duara R, Dickson DW. Neuropathologically defined subtypes of Alzheimer's disease with distinct clinical characteristics: a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(9):785–96.
Ossenkoppele R, Cohn-Sheehy BI, La Joie R, Vogel JW, Moller C, Lehmann M, et al. Atrophy patterns in early clinical stages across distinct phenotypes of Alzheimer's disease. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015;36(11):4421–37.
Ferreira D, Nordberg A, Westman E. Biological subtypes of Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2020;94(10):436–48.
Ferreira D, Verhagen C, Hernandez-Cabrera JA, Cavallin L, Guo CJ, Ekman U, et al. Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer's disease based on patterns of brain atrophy: longitudinal trajectories and clinical applications. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):46263.
Ten Kate M, Dicks E, Visser PJ, van der Flier WM, Teunissen CE, Barkhof F, et al. Atrophy subtypes in prodromal Alzheimer's disease are associated with cognitive decline. Brain. 2018;141(12):3443–56.
Young AL, Marinescu RV, Oxtoby NP, Bocchetta M, Yong K, Firth NC, et al. Uncovering the heterogeneity and temporal complexity of neurodegenerative diseases with Subtype and Stage Inference. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4273.
Ahmad S, Bannister C, van der Lee SJ, Vojinovic D, Adams HHH, Ramirez A, et al. Disentangling the biological pathways involved in early features of Alzheimer's disease in the Rotterdam Study. Alzheimers Dement. 2018.
Darst BF, Koscik RL, Racine AM, Oh JM, Krause RA, Carlsson CM, et al. Pathway-Specific Polygenic Risk Scores as Predictors of Amyloid-beta Deposition and Cognitive Function in a Sample at Increased Risk for Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD. 2017;55(2):473–84.
Morgan AR, Touchard S, O'Hagan C, Sims R, Majounie E, Escott-Price V, et al. The Correlation between Inflammatory Biomarkers and Polygenic Risk Score in Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD. 2017;56(1):25–36.
Tesi N, van der Lee SJ, Hulsman M, Jansen IE, Stringa N, van Schoor NM, et al. Immune response and endocytosis pathways are associated with the resilience against Alzheimer's disease. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10(1):332.
Jack CR, Jr., Bennett DA, Blennow K, Carrillo MC, Dunn B, Haeberlein SB, et al. NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(4):535–62.
Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LC, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience. 2015;4(1):7.
Chen CY, Pollack S, Hunter DJ, Hirschhorn JN, Kraft P, Price AL. Improved ancestry inference using weights from external reference panels. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(11):1399–406.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526(7571):68–74.
Das S, Forer L, Schonherr S, Sidore C, Locke AE, Kwong A, et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat Genet. 2016;48(10):1284–7.
de Leeuw CA, Mooij JM, Heskes T, Posthuma D. MAGMA: generalized gene-set analysis of GWAS data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11(4):e1004219.
Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–9.
Gene Ontology Consortium. The Gene Ontology resource: enriching a GOld mine. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D325-D34.
Croft D, O'Kelly G, Wu G, Haw R, Gillespie M, Matthews L, et al. Reactome: a database of reactions, pathways and biological processes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Database issue):D691-7.
Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D109-14.
Merico D, Isserlin R, Stueker O, Emili A, Bader GD. Enrichment map: a network-based method for gene-set enrichment visualization and interpretation. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e13984.
Choi SW, O'Reilly PF. PRSice-2: Polygenic Risk Score software for biobank-scale data. Gigascience. 2019;8(7).
Shaw LM, Vanderstichele H, Knapik-Czajka M, Clark CM, Aisen PS, Petersen RC, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker signature in Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative subjects. Ann Neurol. 2009;65(4):403–13.
Hansson O, Seibyl J, Stomrud E, Zetterberg H, Trojanowski JQ, Bittner T, et al. CSF biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease concord with amyloid-beta PET and predict clinical progression: A study of fully automated immunoassays in BioFINDER and ADNI cohorts. Alzheimers Dement. 2018.
Landau SM, Breault C, Joshi AD, Pontecorvo M, Mathis CA, Jagust WJ, et al. Amyloid-beta imaging with Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir: comparing radiotracers and quantification methods. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2013;54(1):70–7.
Landau SM, Marks SM, Mormino EC, Rabinovici GD, Oh H, O'Neil JP, et al. Association of lifetime cognitive engagement and low β-amyloid deposition. Archives of Neurology. 2012;69(5):623–9.
Royse SK, Minhas DS, Lopresti BJ, Murphy A, Ward T, Koeppe RA, et al. Validation of amyloid PET positivity thresholds in centiloids: a multisite PET study approach. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2021;13(1):99.
Weigand AJ, Maass A, Eglit GL, Bondi MW. What's the cut-point?: a systematic investigation of tau PET thresholding methods. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2022;14(1):49.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.
Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 2006;38(8):904–9.
Vuong QH. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 1989:307–33.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate - a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc B. 1995;57(1):289–300.
Dourlen P, Kilinc D, Malmanche N, Chapuis J, Lambert JC. The new genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease: from amyloid cascade to genetically driven synaptic failure hypothesis? Acta Neuropathol. 2019;138(2):221–36.
Engin AB, Engin A. Alzheimer’s Disease and Protein Kinases. Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 285–321.
Swerdlow RH. Mitochondria and Mitochondrial Cascades in Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD. 2018;62(3):1403–16.
Swerdlow RH, Burns JM, Khan SM. The Alzheimer's disease mitochondrial cascade hypothesis: progress and perspectives. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1842(8):1219–31.
Chen G, Kroemer G, Kepp O. Mitophagy: An Emerging Role in Aging and Age-Associated Diseases. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:200.
Rajendran L, Honsho M, Zahn TR, Keller P, Geiger KD, Verkade P, et al. Alzheimer's disease beta-amyloid peptides are released in association with exosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(30):11172–7.
Cirrito JR, Kang JE, Lee J, Stewart FR, Verges DK, Silverio LM, et al. Endocytosis is required for synaptic activity-dependent release of amyloid-beta in vivo. Neuron. 2008;58(1):42–51.
Zou L, Wang Z, Shen L, Bao GB, Wang T, Kang JH, et al. Receptor tyrosine kinases positively regulate BACE activity and Amyloid-beta production through enhancing BACE internalization. Cell Res. 2007;17(5):389–401.
Poulsen ET, Iannuzzi F, Rasmussen HF, Maier TJ, Enghild JJ, Jorgensen AL, et al. An Aberrant Phosphorylation of Amyloid Precursor Protein Tyrosine Regulates Its Trafficking and the Binding to the Clathrin Endocytic Complex in Neural Stem Cells of Alzheimer's Disease Patients. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017;10:59.
DeMattos RB, O'Dell M A, Parsadanian M, Taylor JW, Harmony JA, Bales KR, et al. Clusterin promotes amyloid plaque formation and is critical for neuritic toxicity in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(16):10843–8.
Gadhave K, Bolshette N, Ahire A, Pardeshi R, Thakur K, Trandafir C, et al. The ubiquitin proteasomal system: a potential target for the management of Alzheimer's disease. J Cell Mol Med. 2016;20(7):1392–407.
Zarouchlioti C, Parfitt DA, Li W, Gittings LM, Cheetham ME. DNAJ Proteins in neurodegeneration: essential and protective factors. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018;373(1738).
Martin L, Latypova X, Wilson CM, Magnaudeix A, Perrin ML, Yardin C, et al. Tau protein kinases: involvement in Alzheimer's disease. Ageing Res Rev. 2013;12(1):289–309.
Sun Y, Wang M, Zhao Y, Hu K, Liu Y, Liu B, et al. A Pathway-Specific Polygenic Risk Score Is Associated with Tau Pathology and Cognitive Decline. Journal of Alzheimer's disease: JAD. 2022;85(4):1745–54.
Kowall NW, Kosik KS. Axonal disruption and aberrant localization of tau protein characterize the neuropil pathology of Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol. 1987;22(5):639–43.
Iqbal K, Liu F, Gong CX, Grundke-Iqbal I. Tau in Alzheimer disease and related tauopathies. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2010;7(8):656–64.
Leyns CEG, Holtzman DM. Glial contributions to neurodegeneration in tauopathies. Mol Neurodegener. 2017;12(1):50.
Laurent C, Buee L, Blum D. Tau and neuroinflammation: What impact for Alzheimer's Disease and Tauopathies? Biomed J. 2018;41(1):21–33.
Fang EF, Hou Y, Palikaras K, Adriaanse BA, Kerr JS, Yang B, et al. Mitophagy inhibits amyloid-beta and tau pathology and reverses cognitive deficits in models of Alzheimer's disease. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22(3):401–12.
Rapoport M, Dawson HN, Binder LI, Vitek MP, Ferreira A. Tau is essential to beta -amyloid-induced neurotoxicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(9):6364–9.
La Joie R, Visani AV, Baker SL, Brown JA, Bourakova V, Cha J, et al. Prospective longitudinal atrophy in Alzheimer's disease correlates with the intensity and topography of baseline tau-PET. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(524):eaau5732.
Jansen IE, van der Lee SJ, Gomez-Fonseca D, de Rojas I, Dalmasso MC, Grenier-Boley B, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis for Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. Acta Neuropathol. 2022.
Watanabe K, Stringer S, Frei O, Umicevic Mirkov M, de Leeuw C, Polderman TJC, et al. A global overview of pleiotropy and genetic architecture in complex traits. Nat Genet. 2019.
Sey NYA, Hu B, Mah W, Fauni H, McAfee JC, Rajarajan P, et al. A computational tool (H-MAGMA) for improved prediction of brain-disorder risk genes by incorporating brain chromatin interaction profiles. Nat Neurosci. 2020;23(4):583–93.
Gerring ZF, Mina-Vargas A, Gamazon ER, Derks EM. E-MAGMA: an eQTL-informed method to identify risk genes using genome-wide association study summary statistics. Bioinformatics. 2021;37(16):2245–9.

No competing interests reported.

AdditionalFile1.xlsx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 25 Sep, 2023

Read the published version in Journal of Alzheimer's Disease →

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Pathway-specific polygenic risk scores correlate with clinical status and Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Participants

Genotype data processing and imputation

Identification of Alzheimer’s-related pathway clusters

Pathway-specific polygenic risk scores

Measures of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration

Statistical analysis

Results

Pathway analysis

Associations with diagnostic status

Associations with amyloid positivity

Associations with tau positivity

Associations with hippocampal volume

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1