Bulk and Single-nucleus Transcriptomics Highlight Intra-telencephalic and Somatostatin Neurons in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cortical neuron loss is a pathological hallmark of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, it remains unclear which neuronal subtypes are most vulnerable to degeneration and contribute most to cognitive decline. Methods We analyzed postmortem bulk brain RNA-sequencing (RNAseq) data collected from three studies of aging and AD comprising six neocortical regions (704 individuals; 1037 samples). We estimated relative cell type proportions from each brain sample using neuronal subclass-specific marker genes derived from ultra-high depth single-nucleus RNAseq data (snRNAseq). We associated cell type proportions with AD across all samples using mixed-effects mega-analyses. Bulk tissue analyses were complemented by analyses of three AD snRNAseq datasets using the same cell type definitions and diagnostic criteria (51 individuals). Lastly, we identified cell subtype associations with specific neuropathologies, cognitive decline, and residual cognition. Results In our mega-analyses, we identified the strongest associations of AD with fewer somatostatin (SST) inhibitory neurons (β=−0.48, p bonf =8.98×10 −9 ) and intra-telencephalic (IT) excitatory neurons (β=−0.45, p bonf =4.32×10 −7 ). snRNAseq-based cell type proportion analyses especially supported the association of SST neurons. Analyses of cell type proportions with specific AD-related phenotypes in ROS/MAP consistently implicated fewer SST neurons with greater brain-wide postmortem tau and beta amyloid (β=−0.155, p FDR =3.1×10 −4 ) deposition, as well as more severe cognitive decline prior to death (β=0.309, p FDR =3.9×10 −6 ). Greater IT neuron proportions were associated strongly with improved cognition (β=0.173, p FDR =8.3×10 −5 ) and residual cognition (β=0.175, p FDR =1.2×10 −5 ), but not canonical AD neuropathology. Conclusions Proportionally fewer SST and IT neurons were significantly associated with AD diagnosis across multiple studies and cortical regions. These findings support seminal work implicating somatostatin and pyramidal neurons in the pathogenesis of AD and improves our current understanding of neuronal vulnerability in 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".