Overrepresentation of Glutamate Signaling in Alzheimer's Disease: Network-Based Pathway Enrichment Using Meta-Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have successfully identified several risk loci for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Nonetheless, these loci do not explain the entire susceptibility of the disease, suggesting that other genetic contributions remain to be identified. Here, we performed a meta-analysis combining data of 4,569 individuals (2,540 cases and 2,029 healthy controls) derived from three publicly available GWAS in AD and replicated a broad genomic region (>248,000 bp) associated with the disease near the APOE/TOMM40 locus in chromosome 19. To detect minor effect size contributions that could help to explain the remaining genetic risk, we conducted network-based pathway analyses either by extracting gene-wise p-values (GW), defined as the single strongest association signal within a gene, or calculated a more stringent gene-based association p-value using the extended Simes (GATES) procedure. Comparison of these strategies revealed that ontological sub-networks (SNs) involved in glutamate signaling were significantly overrepresented in AD (p<2.7×10(-11), p<1.9×10(-11); GW and GATES, respectively). Notably, glutamate signaling SNs were also found to be significantly overrepresented (p<5.1×10(-8)) in the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study, which was used as a targeted replication sample. Interestingly, components of the glutamate signaling SNs are coordinately expressed in disease-related tissues, which are tightly related to known pathological hallmarks of AD. Our findings suggest that genetic variation within glutamate signaling contributes to the remaining genetic risk of AD and support the notion that functional biological networks should be targeted in future therapies aimed to prevent or treat this devastating neurological disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".