MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607994886 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002287

Identification of genes associated with dissociation of cognitive performance and neuropathological burden: Multistep analysis of genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptional data

2017· article· en· W2607994886 on OpenAlexaff
Charles C. White, Hyun‐Sik Yang, Lei Yu, Lori B. Chibnik, Robert J. Dawe, Jingyun Yang, Hans‐Ulrich Klein, Daniel Felsky, Alfredo Ramos‐Miguel, Konstantinos Arfanakis, William G. Honer, Reisa A. Sperling, Julie A. Schneider, David A. Bennett, Philip L. De Jager

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGenentechBiogenNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeSanofiNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SRush UniversityNational Institute on AgingEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsEpigeneticsGeneticsBiologyCognitionGeneIdentification (biology)Dissociation (chemistry)Computational biologyBioinformaticsNeuroscienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The molecular underpinnings of the dissociation of cognitive performance and neuropathological burden are poorly understood, and there are currently no known genetic or epigenetic determinants of the dissociation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: "Residual cognition" was quantified by regressing out the effects of cerebral pathologies and demographic characteristics on global cognitive performance proximate to death. To identify genes influencing residual cognition, we leveraged neuropathological, genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptional data available for deceased participants of the Religious Orders Study (n = 492) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (n = 487). Given that our sample size was underpowered to detect genome-wide significance, we applied a multistep approach to identify genes influencing residual cognition, based on our prior observation that independent genetic and epigenetic risk factors can converge on the same locus. In the first step (n = 979), we performed a genome-wide association study with a predefined suggestive p < 10-5, and nine independent loci met this threshold in eight distinct chromosomal regions. Three of the six genes within 100 kb of the lead SNP are expressed in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC): UNC5C, ENC1, and TMEM106B. In the second step, in the subset of participants with DLPFC DNA methylation data (n = 648), we found that residual cognition was related to differential DNA methylation of UNC5C and ENC1 (false discovery rate < 0.05). In the third step, in the subset of participants with DLPFC RNA sequencing data (n = 469), brain transcription levels of UNC5C and ENC1 were evaluated for their association with residual cognition: RNA levels of both UNC5C (estimated effect = -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.10, p = 0.0089) and ENC1 (estimated effect = 0.0064, 95% CI 0.0033 to 0.0096, p = 5.7 × 10-5) were associated with residual cognition. In secondary analyses, we explored the mechanism of these associations and found that ENC1 may be related to the previously documented effect of depression on cognitive decline, while UNC5C may alter the composition of presynaptic terminals. Of note, the TMEM106B allele identified in the first step as being associated with better residual cognition is in strong linkage disequilibrium with rs1990622A (r2 = 0.66), a previously identified protective allele for TDP-43 proteinopathy. Limitations include the small sample size for the genetic analysis, which was underpowered to detect genome-wide significance, the evaluation being limited to a single cortical region for epigenetic and transcriptomic data, and the use of categorical measures for certain non-amyloid-plaque, non-neurofibrillary-tangle neuropathologies. CONCLUSIONS: Through a multistep analysis of cognitive, neuropathological, genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic data, we identified ENC1 and UNC5C as genes with convergent genetic, epigenetic, and transcriptomic evidence supporting a potential role in the dissociation of cognition and neuropathology in an aging population, and we expanded our understanding of the TMEM106B haplotype that is protective against TDP-43 proteinopathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations119
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207