Genome-wide association studies of cognitive and motor progression in Parkinson’s disease

INTRODUCTION

Progression in Parkinson’s disease (PD) is heterogeneous, with some patients progressing rapidly while others remain relatively stable over time¹. There is a clear need to identify genetic variants that affect symptom progression in PD. These genes and pathways could be targeted to develop therapies to stop or slow progression of PD. Genetic factors could also help to stratify patients and predict progression more accurately in clinical trials.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in PD have identified 90 independent loci associated with disease risk². However, the majority of PD GWASs have compared cases to healthy controls to identify variants linked to disease status. In order to identify variants that are associated with disease progression, it is necessary to compare phenotypes within patients.

Progression of clinical signs in PD can be measured in different ways³ and there is no gold standard measure of progression, although the MDS-UPDRS Part III and Part II are commonly used in clinical trials. Individual scales, including the MDS-UPDRS, are affected by measurement error particularly for change over time⁴, including rater subjectivity and practice effects in cognitive assessments. Therefore, combining multiple measures may improve the accuracy of measuring progression^5,6, as shown in the Huntington’s disease (HD) progression GWAS⁷. In this study, we analysed data from three large-scale, prospective, longitudinal studies: Tracking Parkinson’s, Oxford Parkinson’s Disease Centre Discovery, and Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI). We combined multiple measures of motor and cognitive progression using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to create progression scores. These scores were analysed in GWASs to identify variants associated with composite (crossdomain), motor, and cognitive progression in PD.

METHODS

Clinical outcome measures

Individual-level data from the cohorts was merged. In order to increase power and the accuracy of the final progression scores, we performed all transformations and created progression scores from the merged dataset as follows (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Steps to create composite, motor, and cognitive progression scores.

The motor and cognitive measures were chosen prior to the analysis. Only assessments conducted in all cohorts were included. We selected measures shown to rate motor and cognitive function semi-objectively, in an attempt to minimise observer bias. We did not include scales which may be affected by a combination of motor, cognitive, and other non-motor symptoms.

Motor progression was assessed using the MDS-UPDRS Part III (clinician-assessed movement examination), MDS-UPDRS Part II (patient-reported experiences of daily living), and Hoehn and Yahr stage (clinician-assessed rating of impairment and disability)^12,13. In PPMI, we used motor assessments conducted in the ‘off’ medication state.

Cognitive progression was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), semantic fluency, and item 1.1 of the MDS-UPDRS (cognitive impairment based on patient and/or caregiver report).

To ensure the different measures were comparable, we first converted raw scores into a percentage of the maximum score for that scale, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. The MoCA was reverse scored to count the number of incorrect items out of the maximum score of 30. Semantic fluency was reverse scored out of the highest individual score at baseline in each cohort.

Each measure was normalised to the population baseline mean and standard deviation within each cohort, to adjust for any differences in the scales or task instructions between cohorts. This also ensures that the measures are on the same scale, and preserves data on longitudinal change.

RESULTS

We included clinical data for 3,364 PD patients with 12,144 observations (Table 1). The mean follow-up time was 4.2 years (SD=1.5 years), and mean disease duration at study entry 2.9 years (SD=2.6 years). 79.7% of patients had completed the 72-month follow-up visit.

Within the motor progression PCA, using the MDS-UPDRS Part III, Part II and Hoehn and Yahr Stage, the first principal component explained 61.0% of the total variance. Within the cognitive domain PCA, using the MoCA, semantic fluency, and MDS-UPDRS 1.1, the first principal component explained 59.8% of the total variance (Supplementary Figures 3–6).

We found that the first principal components for motor and cognitive progression were moderately correlated (r=-0.35, p < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶; Supplementary Table 1). We therefore conducted a PCA combining all motor and cognitive measures, to create a composite progression score. The first principal component from this cross-domain PCA accounted for 41.0% of the joint variance (Supplementary Figure 7). Supplementary Tables 2–3 show the relationships between the raw scales and the final composite progression score. None of the composite, motor, or cognitive principal components were associated with cohort (all p-values >0.9).

GWAS of composite progression

After quality control, imputation, and merging, 5,918,868 variants were available for analysis. 2,755 PD patients had composite progression scores and passed genetic quality control. The GWAS lambda was 1.02. One variant rs429358 in Chromosome 19 passed genome-wide significance (p=1.2×10⁻⁸, Figure 2, Supplementary Table 4, Supplementary Figures 8–9). This variant tags the APOE ε4 allele. In the gene-based test, APOE, TOMM40 and APOC1 reached significance (p<2.8×10⁻⁶, correcting for the number of mapped protein coding genes). The Reactome pathway cytosolic sulfonation of small molecules pathway was significantly enriched (p=6.9×10⁻⁶).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Manhattan plot for GWAS of composite progression. The red dashed line indicates the genome-wide significance threshold p-value 5 × 10⁻⁸.

GWAS of motor progression

2,848 PD patients had motor progression scores and genotype data. The lambda was 1.02. No variants passed genome-wide significance (Figure 3, Supplementary Table 5). However, in the gene-based test, ATP8B2 in Chromosome 1 was associated with motor progression (p=5.3×10⁻⁶, Supplementary Figures 10–11), although this did not reach significance correcting for the number of mapped genes (p=2.81×10⁻⁶). There was no enrichment of any gene sets or pathways.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Manhattan plot for the GWAS of motor progression. Genome-wide significance is the standard p-value 5 × 10⁻⁸ (not indicated in the figure).

We performed follow-up analyses to confirm that the results in the top SNPs were not driven by a single cohort, or a single scale. We conducted GWASs in each cohort separately (Supplementary Table 6) and each motor scale separately (without combining in PCA). These results show that associations are strengthened with the PCA approach (Supplementary Table 7).

Our top variant in Chromosome 1, rs35950207, was associated with motor progression, p=5.0×10⁻⁶. We examined the associations for our top SNPs in the previous progression GWAS²⁴ (https://pdgenetics.shinyapps.io/pdprogmetagwasbrowser/); rs35950207 was not significantly associated with binomial trait analysis of Hoehn and Yahr stage 3 or more at baseline (beta=0.27, p=0.03).

rs35950207 is a variant 2kb upstream of AQP10. It is an eQTL for AQP10 in whole blood (GTEx p=1.7×10⁻⁶, eQTLGen p=3.62×10⁻¹³⁹) and other tissues (subcutaneous adispose, skin, esophagus, testis, and heart). It is also an eQTL for ATP8B2 in blood (GTEx p=1.5×10⁻⁵, eQTLGen p=7.84×10⁻⁴²) and in the cerebellum (GTEx p=7.8×10⁻⁵). GBA is also located in Chromosome 1 and GBA variants are associated with both PD risk and progression²⁵. However, rs35950207 is not in linkage disequilibrium with any of the main GBA variants that are implicated in PD (p.E326K, p.N370S, p.L444P, p.T369M).

rs17367669 in Chromosome 5 was the top SNP in the variant-based analysis, but there were no genes in this region that approached significance in the gene-based analysis. This variant is in an intergenic region and is closest to LOC100505841, Zinc Finger Protein 474-Like gene. No significant eQTLs were identified for this variant.

GWAS of cognitive progression

2,788 patients had cognitive progression scores and genotype data. The lambda value was 1.02. The top variant was rs429358, which tags the APOE ε4 allele (p=2.53×10⁻¹³, Figure 4, Supplementary Table 8, Supplementary Figure 12–14). APOE was also significantly associated with cognitive progression in the gene-based analysis, in addition to APOC1 and TOMM40. There was no enrichment of gene-sets or pathways. Follow-up analyses showed that the effects for the top 5 independent SNPs were consistent in each cohort and each scale (Supplementary Tables 9–10).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Manhattan plot for the variant-based GWAS of cognitive progression. The red dashed line indicates the genome-wide significance threshold p-value 5 × 10⁻⁸.

Targeted assessment of PD risk loci

Of the 90 risk variants from the PD case-control GWAS², 73 were present in our final dataset, including the SNCA and TMEM175/GAK variants associated with PD age at onset²⁶. We extracted results for these variants from the composite, motor, and cognitive GWASs. No variants passed analysis-wide significance (p=0.05/73). Variants with at least one association p<0.05 are shown in Supplementary Figure 15.

We found that only a small number of risk variants were associated with progression with p-values <0.05. rs35749011 was associated with both composite progression (beta=0.40, p=0.003) and cognitive progression (beta=-0.37, p=0.002), but not motor progression (beta=0.20, p=0.09). This variant is in linkage disequilibrium with the GBA p.E326K variant (also known as p.E365K), D’=0.90, R²=0.78.

We also extracted results for other candidate variants that have been implicated in PD progression (Supplementary Figure 16). We did not find that the top variant rs382940 in SLC44A1 that was associated in progression to H&Y stage 3 from the Iwaki GWAS²⁴ was associated with either composite, motor or cognitive progression in our GWASs (all p-values >0.05).

Overall, we did not find any overlap between the variants associated with PD risk, age at onset, and progression. Our LDSC results were also suggestive of very little overlap between the each of the progression GWASs and PD case-control GWAS (all p-values >0.5).

PD Genetic risk score

73 PD risk SNPs were present in our genotype data, and 2 proxies were identified for missing variants (Supplementary Table 11). There was no association between the risk score and composite progression (beta=0.09, p=0.10), or motor progression (beta=0.02, p=0.65). There was a small association between the genetic risk score and cognitive progression (beta=-0.099, p=0.04).

Removal of non-PD cases

We conducted sensitivity analyses to remove patients with potential non-PD conditions. Removing patients with <90% diagnostic certainty did not substantially affect our results; the top signals had slightly weaker associations in these sensitivity analyses. When we removed the extreme 5% of progressors, the top results from the main GWASs had larger p-values, although the direction of effects were the same (Supplementary Tables 12–13).

DISCUSSION

We used a new method of analysing clinical progression in PD, by combining multiple assessments in a data-driven PCA to derive scores of composite, motor, and cognitive progression.

Our study contributes to evidence that improving the phenotypic measure can increase power in genetic studies. We showed that associations at the top signals strengthened when using the combined motor and cognitive progression scores compared to using the scales separately. The HD progression GWAS also showed that motor, cognitive, and brain imaging measures were well correlated and successfully identified a variant in MSH3 associated with composite progression⁷. Other studies have shown that prediction accuracy of PD status or progression (such as development of cognitive impairment) is improved by combining multiple clinical, genetic, and biomarker factors^6,27.

In PD, there are many different scales for assessing symptoms. Each scale has a degree of measurement error⁴ and different sensitivity to progression of underlying symptoms²⁸. PCA is a data-driven approach that combines multiple measures to identify latent components that explain the most variability in the data, and these may more accurately reflect disease progression.

Our progression GWASs have identified two positive findings. Firstly, we replicated previous findings for APOE ε4. Many studies have shown that the ε4 allele is associated with more dementia in PD^29–32, and potentially separately from the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)³³. One possible mechanism is that APOE is associated with amyloid-β pathology, as comorbid AD pathology is common in PD patients with dementia (PDD) at postmortem³⁴. Alternatively, APOE may drive cognitive decline independently of amyloid/AD pathology. Recent animal model work has shown that the ε4 allele is independently associated with α-synuclein pathology and toxicity³⁵. In addition, the ε4 allele is overrepresented in Dementia with Lewy Body cases with ‘pure’ Lewy body pathology, compared to PDD cases³⁶. A systematic review showed that limbic and neocortical α-synuclein pathology had the strongest association with dementia in PD³⁴. Further work is needed to determine the mechanisms by which APOE influences cognitive decline.

We identified a novel signal in ATP8B2 associated with motor progression in a gene-based analysis. This gene encodes an ATPase phospholipid transporter (type 8B, member 2). Phospholipid translocation may be important in the formation of transport vesicles³⁷. This gene has not previously been reported in PD or other diseases, and needs to be tested in other independent cohorts.

We have shown that the genetics of PD risk and progression are largely separate. We performed a targeted analysis of the 90 risk loci identified in PD case-control GWAS². GBA p.E326K was nominally associated with composite and cognitive progression. Previous studies show that GBA variants are associated with rapid progression and mortality^38–43, however many of these studies have longer follow-up, or patients with longer disease duration at initial examination (6 to 15 years). This may explain why we did not find a strong effect for GBA, and is supported by analysis of GBA in patients earlier in disease stage⁴⁴. In addition, we only had coverage of the p.E326K variant which is a ‘milder’ mutation^39,45. Our unbiased genome-wide search suggests that, in addition to GBA, there are potentially other genes that are important for PD progression.

Our targeted analysis showed that only a few PD risk variants were nominally associated with progression, similar to the previous PD progression GWAS^24,46. This suggests that there is minimal overlap in the genetic architecture of PD risk and PD progression. Similarly, the age at onset GWAS showed only a partial overlap with the genetics of PD risk²⁶. Given our current sample size, we would have at least 80% power to detect an individual genotype effect which explains 1.8% of the variance in progression. It is now becoming increasingly important to study disease phenotypes in GWASs, as these improve our understanding of the biology of progression.

We did not replicate the finding for the SLC44A1 variant that was associated with progression to Hoehn and Yahr stage 3 in a previous PD progression GWAS²⁴. We have used different methods and a different phenotype to analyse PD progression. Further progression GWASs are needed to replicate both sets of results, and other metrics for PD progression could be analysed, such as mortality.

A strength of this study is the analysis of large, more homogeneous cohorts with relatively long follow-up. Overall, the cohorts were similar although the PPMI patients were younger and earlier in disease stage. One limitation is that longer follow-up is needed to detect variants which may influence progression in later disease stages, such as GBA. We may also be underpowered to detect variants with smaller effects on progression. Although the HD GWAS identified significant signals in smaller samples⁷, analysis of PD progression is more complex due to slower progression, greater heterogeneity in genetic risk and rate of progression between patients, and greater dissociation between motor and cognitive progression.

Secondly, our analysis of motor progression may be affected by medication. We used the ‘off’ state motor assessment from PPMI, because patients were medication-naïve at baseline, however in the other cohorts the majority of patients were assessed in their ‘on’ medication state. We did not adjust for levodopa dosage as this is likely to be correlated with progression.

A third limitation is the potential inclusion of patients that have non-PD conditions. We did not find that our results changed substantially when we excluded patients with diagnostic certainty <90%. However certainty data was not available for PPMI, and abnormal dopamine transporter scans cannot differentiate between PD and other degenerative parkinsonian conditions⁴⁸. Despite this, our sensitivity analyses suggest that our results are not being driven by non-PD conditions. Our GWASs also did not identify loci that are associated with PSP risk, including MAPT, MOBP⁴⁹, or the variant rs2242367 near LRRK2 associated with PSP progression⁵⁰.

Many of our top variants had weaker signals when we excluded the 10% fastest and slowest progressing patients, likely due to loss of statistical power. With our duration of follow-up, we are likely to have excluded the majority of non-PD patients as diagnostic accuracy improves after 5 years of disease duration^1,51 however it is possible that some have not been excluded. Analysis of pathologically-confirmed PD cases is needed to resolve this issue.

This study is the first to use a PCA data reduction method to assess PD progression, based on a successful approach in HD. We robustly replicated the association between APOE ε4 and cognitive progression, and have identified other genes which may be associated with progression. These advances are essential to understand the biology of disease progression and nominate therapeutic targets to stop or slow PD progression.

Data Availability

Anonymised data from Tracking Parkinson’s and Oxford Discovery are available to researchers on application. Please apply via the project coordinators (tracking-parkinsons{at}glasgow.ac.uk and parkinsons.discovery{at}nhs.net respectively). The PPMI data is publicly available on application (https://www.ppmi-info.org/access-data-specimens/download-data/).

Code is available at https://github.com/huw-morris-lab/PD-PCA-progression-GWAS.

Author Contributions

1. Research project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution;

2. Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique;

3. Manuscript Preparation: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique.

M.M.X.T.: 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B

M.A.L.: 1B, 2C, 3B

E.J.: 2C, 3B

R.H.R.: 2C, 3B

H.I.: 2C, 3B

C.B.: 2C, 3B

S.K.: 1B, 3B

M.P.: 2C, 3B

L.H.: 1C

N.M.: 1C, 3B

K.A.G.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3B

S.L.M.: 1C

N.B.: 1A, 1B, 1C

R.A.B.: 1A, 1B, 3B

D.J.B.: 1A, 1B, 3B

C.B.: 1C

T.F.: 1A, 1B, 3B

J.H.: 1A, 3B

N.W.: 1A, 1B

C.H.W-G.: 1B, 1C, 2C, 3B

M.A.N.: 2C, 3B

A.B.S.: 3B

N.W.W.: 1A, 1B, 2C, 3B

Y.B-S.: 1A, 1B, 2C, 3B

M.T.M.H.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3B

D.G.G.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3B

M.S.: 2A, 2C, 3B

H.R.M.: 1A, 1B, 2A, 2C, 3B

Financial Disclosures for the preceding 12 months

M.M.X.T. is supported Parkinson’s UK. M.A.L. is supported by Parkinson’s UK. E.J. is supported by the Medical Research Council UK. R.H.R. supported through the award of a Leonard Wolfson Doctoral Training Fellowship. N.B. has received payment for advisory board attendance from UCB, Teva Lundbeck, Britannia, GSK, Boehringer and honoraria from UCB Pharma, GE Healthcare, Lily Pharma, Medtronic. He has received research grant support from GE Healthcare, Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Parkinson’s UK and National Institute for Health Research. R.A.B. has received grants from Parkinson’s UK, NIHR, Cure Parkinson’s Trust, Evelyn Trust, Rosetrees Trust, MRC, Wellcome Trust, and EU along with payment for advisory board work from Oxford Biomedica, Living Cell Technologies, Fujifilm Cellular Dynamics Inc, Nova Nordisk, BlueRock Therapeutics, Sana Biotherapeutics, Aspen Neuroscience and UCB along with honoraria from Wiley and Springer for books and editorial work.D.J.B. has received grants from NIHR, Wellcome Trust, GlaxoSmithKline Ltd, Parkinson’s UK and Michael J Fox Foundation. T.F. has received grants from Michael J Fox Foundation, Cure Parkinson’s Trust, Brain Research trust, John Black Charitable Foundation, Rosetrees trust and honoraria for speaking at meetings from Bial, Profile Pharma and Medtronic. N.W.W. is supported by the MRC and NIHR UCLH Biomedical research centre. C.H.W-G is supported by a RCUK/UKRI Research Innovation Fellowship awarded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R007446/1), by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre Dementia and Neurodegeneration Theme (Grant Reference Number 146281), and by the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-Plus. M.A.N. reports that this work was done under a consulting contract with National Institutes of Health, he also consults for Lysosomal Therapeutics Inc, Neuron23, and Illumina. J.H. is supported by the UK Dementia Research Institute which receives its funding from DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. He is also supported by the MRC, Wellcome Trust, Dolby Family Fund, National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. Y.B-S. has received grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, Parkinson’s UK, NIH and ESRC. N.M.W. is supported by Parkinson’s UK. M.T.H. receives grants from Parkinson’s UK, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and MJFF and is an adviser to the Roche Prodromal Advisory and Biogen Digital advisory boards. D.G.G. has received grants from Michael’s Movers, The Neurosciences Foundation, and Parkinson’s UK, and honoraria from UCB Pharma and GE Healthcare, and consultancy fees from Acorda Therapeutics. H.R.M. is supported by the PSP Association, CBD Solutions, Drake Foundation, the Medical Research Council UK, Parkinson’s UK, and Cure Parkinson’s Trust. All other authors did not declare any funding sources that directly contributed to this study. M.M.X.T. takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.