Article

Apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele, AD pathology, and the clinical expression of Alzheimer's disease.

Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA.
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.3). 01/2003; 60(2):246-52. DOI: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000042478.08543.F7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To test the hypothesis that the APOE epsilon4 allele is associated with the clinical manifestations of AD through an association with the pathologic hallmarks of disease.
Participants were older Catholic nuns, priests, and brothers who agreed to annual neurologic and neuropsychological evaluation for AD and other common neurologic conditions and brain autopsy at the time of death. There were 77 persons without dementia and 51 with probable AD; 38 participants had one or more epsilon4 alleles.
In logistic regression analyses, controlling for age, sex, and education, the epsilon4 allele was strongly associated with the likelihood of clinical AD (odds = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.44 to 8.33). However, controlling for the effect of AD pathology, the association of the epsilon allele with clinical AD was reduced by >50% and was no longer significant (odds = 1.58, 95% CI = 0.56 to 4.43). Similarly, in linear regression analyses, controlling for age, sex, and education, the epsilon4 allele was strongly associated with level of cognitive function proximate to death (regression coefficient = -0.477, p = 0.005). However, after controlling for the effect of AD pathology, the association of the epsilon4 allele with level of cognition was reduced by >80% and was no longer significant (regression coefficient = -0.093). Similar results were found in analyses using separate measures of neuritic plaques, diffuse plaques, and neurofibrillary tangles, and in analyses of five different cognitive systems (episodic memory, semantic memory, working memory, perceptual speed, and visuospatial ability).
The APOE epsilon4 allele appears to be associated with the clinical manifestations of AD through an association with the pathologic hallmarks of AD rather than another mechanism.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
184 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the original publication describing the illness in 1907, the genetic understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has advanced such that it is now clear that it is a genetically heterogeneous condition, the subtypes of which may not uniformly respond to a given intervention. It is therefore critical to characterize the clinical and preclinical stages of AD subtypes, including the rare autosomal dominant forms caused by known mutations in the PSEN1, APP, and PSEN2 genes that are being studied in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network study and its associated secondary prevention trial. Similar efforts are occurring in an extended Colombian family with a PSEN1 mutation, in APOE ε4 homozygotes, and in Down syndrome. Despite commonalities in the mechanisms producing the AD phenotype, there are also differences that reflect specific genetic origins. Treatment modalities should be chosen and trials designed with these differences in mind. Ideally, the varying pathological cascades involved in the different subtypes of AD should be defined so that both areas of overlap and of distinct differences can be taken into account. At the very least, clinical trials should determine the influence of known genetic factors in post hoc analyses.
    Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 11/2014; 14(11):499. · 3.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Polymorphism of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) plays a role in the level of neuropathological lesions and in drug response in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The aim of this study was to investigate whether the selection of AD patients based on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers assessment may be biased by their APOE distribution. We studied the relationships between APOE genotype and CSF biomarkers levels in a total of 432 patients (AD, n = 244; non-AD, n = 188) explored for cognitive disorders. We studied the distribution of APOE genotypes among AD patient subgroups selected by various cut-offs of CSF biomarkers. Strategies of screening based on CSF Aβ1-42 lead to overselection of ε4/ε4 patients in the AD group. Screening based on tau levels did not change Apoe4 distribution in the AD group. CSF Aβ1-42 discriminated better AD patients with at least one ε4 than AD patients with no ε4. A strong allele-effect relationship was detected between APOE genotype and CSF amyloid-β (Aβ1-42) in AD patients. Selecting AD patients on CSF amyloid levels only may create an overselection of ε4/ε4 carriers, and might potentially bias the population of patients included in clinical trial studies.
    Journal of Neurology 04/2014; · 3.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This is a qualitative review of the evidence linking dietary fat composition to the risk of developing dementia. The review considers laboratory and animal studies that identify underlying mechanisms as well as prospective epidemiologic studies linking biochemical or dietary fatty acids to cognitive decline or incident dementia. Several lines of evidence provide support for the hypothesis that high saturated or trans fatty acids increase the risk of dementia and high polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fatty acids decrease risk. Dietary fat composition is an important factor in blood-brain barrier function and the blood cholesterol profile. Cholesterol and blood-brain barrier function are involved in the neuropathology of Alzheimer's disease, and the primary genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, apolipoprotein E-ε4, is involved in cholesterol transport. The epidemiologic literature is seemingly inconsistent on this topic, but many studies are difficult to interpret because of analytical techniques that ignored negative confounding by other fatty acids, which likely resulted in null findings. The studies that appropriately adjust for confounding by other fats support the dietary fat composition hypothesis.
    Neurobiology of Aging 05/2014; · 4.85 Impact Factor