Genetic Contributions to Alzheimer’s Disease: The Role of Immune Modulatory Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a robust imputation method on two case–control cohorts (a small UCSF cohort and a large cohort from the Alzheimer’s Disease Genetics Consortium [ADGC]) to identify HLA haplotypes associated with Alzheimer’s disease and followed up these studies with direct sequencing of the HLA region in AD cases and controls, including both typical amnestic and atypical clinical forms of disease. In our imputed study, we found the haplotype A*03:01~B*07:02~DRB1*15:01~DQA1*01:02~DQB1*06:02 (p = 9.6 x 10-4, odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval] = 1.21 [1.08–1.37]) was associated with increased risk of AD in the combined UCSF + ADGC cohort (n = 11,690). Secondary analysis suggested that this effect may be driven primarily by individuals who are negative for APOE-ε4. Separate analyses of class I and II haplotypes further supported the role of class I haplotype A*03:01~B*07:02 (p = 0.03, OR = 1.11 [1.01–1.23]) and class II haplotype DRB1*15:01~DQA1*01:02~DQB1*06:02 (DR15) (p = 0.03, OR = 1.08 [1.01–1.15]) as risk factors for AD. We followed up these genetic associations in a separate clinical dataset representing the spectrum of cognitively normal controls, individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and individuals with AD to assess their relevance to disease. Carrying A*03:01~B*07:02 was associated with higher CSF amyloid levels. We also found a dose-dependent association between the DR15 haplotype and greater rates of cognitive decline on two different assessments. \tWe also directly sequenced the HLA region in an expanded cohort of AD cases, controls, and atypical AD cases seen at UCSF. We corroborated the accuracy of HLA imputation via direct sequencing of 308 overlapping samples and confirmed the association of the haplotype previously associated with AD risk in the UCSF cohort. We also found that the A*03:01~B*07:02~C*07:02~DRB1*15:01~DQB1*06:02~DPB1*04:01 haplotype was associated with decreased risk of atypical AD in our cohort (p = 0.01, OR = 0.18 [0.02-0.74]). Taken together, our findings corroborate a role of the HLA in AD risk and suggest a differential role of HLA variation in amnestic versus atypical AD.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".