CDH6 and HAGH protein levels in plasma associate with Alzheimer’s disease in APOE ε4 carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many Alzheimer’s disease (AD) genes including Apolipoprotein E (APOE) are found to be expressed in blood-derived macrophages and thus may alter blood protein levels. We measured 91 neuro-proteins in plasma from 316 participants of the Rotterdam Study (incident AD = 161) using Proximity Extension Ligation assay. We studied the association of plasma proteins with AD in the overall sample and stratified by APOE. Findings from the Rotterdam study were replicated in 186 AD patients of the BioFINDER study. We further evaluated the correlation of these protein biomarkers with total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid-beta (Aβ) 42 levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort (N = 441). Finally, we conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify the genetic variants determining the blood levels of AD-associated proteins. Plasma levels of the proteins, CDH6 (β = 0.638, P = 3.33 × 10−4) and HAGH (β = 0.481, P = 7.20 × 10−4), were significantly elevated in APOE ε4 carrier AD patients. The findings in the Rotterdam Study were replicated in the BioFINDER study for both CDH6 (β = 1.365, P = 3.97 × 10−3) and HAGH proteins (β = 0.506, P = 9.31 × 10−7) when comparing cases and controls in APOE ε4 carriers. In the CSF, CDH6 levels were positively correlated with t-tau and p-tau in the total sample as well as in APOE ε4 stratum (P < 1 × 10−3). The HAGH protein was not detected in CSF. GWAS of plasma CDH6 protein levels showed significant association with a cis-regulatory locus (rs111283466, P = 1.92 × 10−9). CDH6 protein is implicated in cell adhesion and synaptogenesis while HAGH protein is related to the oxidative stress pathway. Our findings suggest that these pathways may be altered during presymptomatic AD and that CDH6 and HAGH may be new blood-based biomarkers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".