A genetic and proteomic comparison of key AD biomarkers across tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Plasma has been proposed as an alternative to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for measuring Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers, but no studies have analyzed in detail which biofluid is more informative for genetics studies of AD. METHOD: Eleven proteins associated with AD (α-synuclein, apolipoprotein E [apoE], CLU, GFAP, GRN, NfL, NRGN, SNAP-25, TREM2, VILIP-1, YKL-40) were assessed in plasma (n = 2317) and CSF (n = 3107). Both plasma and CSF genome-wide association study (GWAS) analyses were performed for each protein, followed by functional annotation. Additional characterization for each biomarker included calculation of correlations and predictive power. RESULTS: Eighteen plasma protein quantitative train loci (pQTLs) associated with 10 proteins and 16 CSF pQTLs associated with 9 proteins were identified. Plasma and CSF shared some genetic loci, but protein levels between tissues correlated weakly. CSF protein levels better associated with AD compared to plasma. DISCUSSION: The present results indicate that CSF is more informative than plasma for genetic studies in AD. HIGHLIGHTS: The identification of novel protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs) in both plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Plasma and CSF levels of neurodegeneration-related proteins correlated weakly. CSF is more informative than plasma for genetic studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Neurofilament light (NfL), triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2), and chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40) tend to show relatively strong inter-tissue associations. A novel signal in the apolipoprotein E (APOE) region was identified, which is an eQTL for APOC1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".