Influence of APOE ε4 on performance of CSF biomarkers in differentiating clinical Alzheimer's disease

被引:0
|
作者
Wang, Yan [1 ,2 ]
Li, Fangyu [1 ,2 ]
Qin, Qi [1 ,2 ]
Li, Tingting [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Qi [1 ,2 ]
Li, Yan [1 ,2 ]
Li, Ying [1 ,2 ]
Jia, Jianping [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Capital Med Univ, Xuanwu Hosp, Innovat Ctr Neurol Disorders, Natl Clin Res Ctr Geriatr Dis, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Capital Med Univ, Xuanwu Hosp, Natl Clin Res Ctr Geriatr Dis, Dept Neurol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Capital Med Univ, Clin Ctr Neurodegenerat Dis & Memory Impairment, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Capital Med Univ, Beijing Inst Brain Disorders, Ctr Alzheimers Dis, Collaborat Innovat Ctr Brain Disorders, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Minist Educ, Key Lab Neurodegenerat Dis, Beijing, Peoples R China
来源
基金
中国国家自然科学基金; 美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Alzheimer's disease; Apolipoprotein E; Mild cognitive impairment; Biomarker; Cognitive decline; CEREBROSPINAL-FLUID; TAU; METAANALYSIS; LOCI; BETA;
D O I
10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100065
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE epsilon 4) bring the higher risk of Alzheimer' Disease (AD). It is essential to evaluate whether the diagnostic performances and critical values of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are influenced by APOE epsilon 4, which has guiding significance for the clinical practical application. Methods: The differences in CSF biomarkers and their performances between APOE epsilon 4 carriers and non-carriers in distinguishing AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and preclinical AD from normal controls (NCs) were analyzed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare the area under the curve (AUC) between APOE epsilon 4 carriers and non-carriers, as well as the critical values corresponding Youden Index. Results: In a cross sectional convenience sample of 1610 participants, lower A beta 42 and A beta 42/A beta 40 and higher p-Tau 181/A beta 42 in CSF were observed among APOE epsilon 4 carriers than non-carriers in NC, MCI, and AD groups (P< 0.05). The performance of CSF p-tau/A beta 42 in distinguishing MCI from NC among APOE epsilon 4 carriers was superior to non-carriers [AUC: 0.714 (95%CI: 0.673- 0.752) vs 0.600 (95%CI: 0.564- 0.634), P< 0.001], although it was similar in distinguishing AD from NC between APOE epsilon 4 carriers and non-carriers [AUC: 0.874 (95%CI: 0.835-0.906) vs 0.876 (95%CI: 0.843- 0.904)]. In the longitudinal cohort of 254 participants, the association of CSF A beta 42, A beta 42/A beta 40 and p-Tau181/A beta 42 with cognitive decline were stronger in APOE epsilon 4 carriers compared to non-carriers (P< 0.05). Meanwhile, the critical values were different depending on APOE genotype. Discussion: The CSF level of p-Tau181/A beta 42 was significantly different between APOE epsilon 4 carriers and non-carriers at different stages of AD. The results indicate that the performances of CSF biomarkers are influenced by APOE epsilon 4, which should be considered in the practical application.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Influence of APOE Genotype on Alzheimer's Disease CSF Biomarkers in a Spanish Population
    Monge-Argiles, J. A.
    Gasparini-Berenguer, R.
    Gutierrez-Agullo, M.
    Munoz-Ruiz, C.
    Sanchez-Paya, J.
    Leiva-Santana, C.
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 2016
  • [2] INFLUENCE OF APOE ε4 ON CSF BIOMARKERS OF THE NEUROVASCULAR UNIT DURING MILD DEMENTIA AND ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
    Sweeney, M. D.
    Sagare, A. P.
    Nation, D. A.
    Halliday, M. R.
    Fagan, A. M.
    Morris, J. C.
    Zlokovic, B. V.
    JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM, 2016, 36 : 731 - 732
  • [3] CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer’s pathology and the effect size of APOE ɛ4
    U Andreasson
    R Lautner
    J M Schott
    N Mattsson
    O Hansson
    S-K Herukka
    S Helisalmi
    M Ewers
    H Hampel
    A Wallin
    L Minthon
    J Hardy
    K Blennow
    H Zetterberg
    Molecular Psychiatry, 2014, 19 : 148 - 149
  • [4] CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer's pathology and the effect size of APOE ε4
    Andreasson, U.
    Lautner, R.
    Schott, J. M.
    Mattsson, N.
    Hansson, O.
    Herukka, S-K
    Helisalmi, S.
    Ewers, M.
    Hampel, H.
    Wallin, A.
    Minthon, L.
    Hardy, J.
    Blennow, K.
    Zetterberg, H.
    MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY, 2014, 19 (02) : 148 - 149
  • [5] No association of CSF biomarkers with APOEε4, plaque and tangle burden in definite Alzheimer's disease
    Engelborghs, Sebastiaan
    Sleegers, Kristel
    Cras, Patrick
    Brouwers, Nathalie
    Serneels, Sally
    De Leenheir, Evelyn
    Martin, Jean-Jacques
    Vanmechelen, Eugeen
    Van Broeckhoven, Christine
    De Deyn, Peter Paul
    BRAIN, 2007, 130 : 2320 - 2326
  • [6] Joint Effect of Hypertension and APOE Genotype on CSF Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease
    Kester, Maartje I.
    van der Flier, Wiesje M.
    Mandic, Gorana
    Blankenstein, Marinus A.
    Scheltens, Philip
    Muller, Majon
    JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE, 2010, 20 (04) : 1083 - 1090
  • [7] Sex differences in CSF biomarkers vary by Alzheimer disease stage and APOE ε4 genotype
    Mofrad, Rosha Babapour
    Tijms, Betty M.
    Scheltens, Philip
    Barkhof, Frederik
    van der Flier, Wiesje M.
    Sikkes, Sietske A. M.
    Teunissen, Charlotte E.
    NEUROLOGY, 2020, 95 (17) : E2378 - E2388
  • [8] CSF and MRI perfusion biomarkers in middle-aged adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease: influence of APOE4 allele
    Carlsson, C. M.
    Wen, Z.
    Xu, G.
    Rowley, H.
    Newman, G.
    Barnet, J.
    Gleason, C.
    Puglielli, L.
    Vigen, K.
    McMillan, A.
    McKinsey, R.
    Ollinger, J.
    Sager, M.
    Hermann, B.
    Asthana, S.
    Fain, S.
    Johnson, S.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2008, 56 (04) : S201 - S201
  • [9] Use of CSF biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials
    Blennow, K.
    Zetterberg, H.
    JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING, 2009, 13 (04): : 358 - 361
  • [10] Alzheimer's Disease and the Routine Clinical Use of CSF Biomarkers
    Martorana, Alessandro
    CNS & NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS-DRUG TARGETS, 2017, 16 (04) : 407 - 413