Complement receptor 1 gene (CR1) intragenic duplication and risk of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) within and surrounding the complement receptor 1 (CR1) gene show some of the strongest genome-wide association signals with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. Some studies have suggested that this association signal is due to a duplication allele (CR1-B) of a low copy repeat (LCR) within the CR1 gene, which increases the number of complement C3b/C4b-binding sites in the mature receptor. In this study, we develop a triplex paralogue ratio test assay for CR1 LCR copy number allowing large numbers of samples to be typed with a limited amount of DNA. We also develop a CR1-B allele-specific PCR based on the junction generated by an historical non-allelic homologous recombination event between CR1 LCRs. We use these methods to genotype CR1 and measure CR1-B allele frequency in both late-onset and early-onset cases and unaffected controls from the United Kingdom. Our data support an association of late-onset Alzheimer's disease with the CR1-B allele, and confirm that this allele occurs most frequently on the risk haplotype defined by SNV alleles. Furthermore, regression models incorporating CR1-B genotype provide a better fit to our data compared to incorporating the SNV-defined risk haplotype, supporting the CR1-B allele as the variant underlying the increased risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".