Association between the LRP1B and APOE loci and the development of Parkinson’s disease dementia

Raquel Real, Alejandro Martinez-Carrasco, Regina H. Reynolds, Michael A. Lawton, Manuela M. X. Tan, Maryam Shoai, Jean-Christophe Corvol, Mina Ryten, Catherine Bresner, Leon Hubbard, Alexis Brice, Suzanne Lesage, Johann Faouzi, Alexis Elbaz, Fanny Artaud, Nigel Williams, Michele T. M. Hu, Yoav Ben-Shlomo, Donald G. Grosset, John Hardy, Huw R. Morris
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.23.22275465

Abstract

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is one of the most common age-related neurodegenerative disorders. Although predominantly a motor disorder, cognitive impairment and dementia are important features of PD, particularly in the later stages of the disease. However, the rate of cognitive decline varies widely among PD patients, and the genetic basis for this heterogeneity is incompletely understood. Here, we have analysed 3,964 clinically diagnosed PD cases to explore the genetic factors associated with rate of progression to PD dementia. Genome-wide survival analysis identified the APOE-ε4 allele as a major risk factor for the conversion to PD dementia, as well as three new loci, including the ApoE and APP receptor LRP1B. Biomarker analysis also implicates the amyloid pathway in PD dementia, suggesting that amyloid-targeting therapy may have an important role in preventing PDD.

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 100-200 cases per 100,000 individuals1. Although PD is mainly viewed as a motor disorder, the development of dementia in PD is an important determinant of morbidity, mortality and need for social support.2 The clinico-pathological phenotype of Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD) can be indistinguishable from dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), although in PDD motor symptoms must by definition precede the development of dementia by at least one year3. Neuropsychiatric manifestations of PDD include cognitive fluctuation with visual misperception, hallucinations, and delusions together with deficits in attention, executive and visuo-spatial function. Cholinergic denervation seems to be important in PDD and cholinesterase inhibitors can improve PDD symptoms4, but there is no treatment for the underlying disease pathology. Identifying the causal mechanisms will be an important step in defining new treatments.

Age is the single most important risk factor for PDD. It is estimated that by the age of 90, 80-90% of individuals with PD will have developed dementia.4 Other clinical predictors of progression to dementia include disease severity and longer disease duration5–7. However, the rates of progression to PDD vary substantially among individuals, which has important implications for prognosis and quality of life. Several genetic factors have been reported to increase the risk or rate of progression to PDD. The most widely reported genetic risk factor associated with increased risk of conversion to PDD is the APOE ε4 allele8–10. Single rare variants in the GBA gene increase the risk of developing PDD, and the risk may relate to the pathogenicity of the variant11–13. Several studies have also reported that the MAPT H1 haplotype is associated with dementia9, 14, 15, although this has not been universally replicated10. Genome-wide association studies in neurodegenerative disease have largely defined case-control risk factors for disease susceptibility, but the increasing availability of high-quality longitudinal clinical datasets enables a systematic search for disease modifying factors. Here, we use a genome-wide survival analysis approach to identify new genetic factors that contribute to the progression to PDD.

Results

Cohort characterisation

Following data cleaning (Supplementary Fig. 1), a total of 3,964 individuals diagnosed with PD were available for analysis from the Tracking Parkinson’s (TPD)16, Oxford Parkinson’s Disease Centre Discovery Cohort (OPDC)17, Accelerating Medicines Partnership: Parkinson’s Disease (AMP-PD)18, and Drug Interaction With Genes in Parkinson’s Disease (DIGPD). Demographic characteristics of each patient cohort are shown in Supplementary Table 1. Participants in DIGPD and AMP-PD cohorts were significantly younger at PD onset (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared value = 198.99, df = 3, post hoc Dunn’s multiple comparison test, TPD vs DIGPD: P = 2.08x10-19; TDP vs AMP-PD: P = 1.09x10-27; OPDC vs DIGPD, P = 2.35x10-17; OPDC vs AMP-PD: P = 6.53x10-21) and at study baseline (Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared value = 159.86, df = 3, post hoc Dunn’s multiple comparison test, TPD vs DIGPD: P = 3.07x10-18; TDP vs AMP-PD: P = 1.11x10-21; OPDC vs DIGPD: P = 4.98x10-15; OPDC vs AMP-PD: P =1.10x10-14), which is probably reflected in the significantly reduced event rates in these two cohorts (χ2 test with Yates correction, TPD vs AMP-PD: χ2 = 17.6, df = 1, P = 2.758x10-05; OPDC vs AMP-PD: χ2 = 61.8, df = 1, P = 3.883x10-15; OPDC vs DIGPD: χ2 = 14.7, df = 1, P = 1.287x10-04). Adjusted MoCA or MMSE scores over time in PD cases who never developed dementia during the study follow-up remained constant over time, while they were consistently lower and showed greater decline in individuals who went on to develop PDD during study follow-up (Supplementary Fig. 2).

Identification of genetic determinants of PDD

In our genome wide survival meta-analysis assessing the role of 6,107,418 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the development of PDD, we identified four genome-wide significant genetic loci (Fig. 1 and Table 1; regional association plots in Supplementary Fig. 3). The most significant SNP was the ε4 allele-tagging SNP rs429358 in APOE (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 2.42; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.95, 3.01; P = 1.2 x10-15). APOE is the most important genetic risk factor for the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and has also been shown in multiple studies to contribute to cognitive decline and dementia in PD8–10, 19. Conditional analysis on the lead SNP at the APOE locus did not reveal any other independent SNPs contributing to the signal at this location (Supplementary Fig. 4a-b and Supplementary Table 2).

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Manhattan plot representing the results of the GWSS meta-analysis. The GWSS was conducted using a Cox proportional hazards model in each cohort separately, and results were meta-analysed (PDD: n = 272; PD: n = 3,692). Red dots indicate the variant with the lowest P-value at each genome-wide significant genetic locus and the gene closest to the top variant is indicated. Genome-wide significance was set at 5x10-8 and is indicated by the dashed line.

View this table:
Table 1

Top independent SNPs from GWSS meta-analysis

The second genome-wide significant genetic locus was on chromosome 2, in a region spanning ∼633kb, as defined by SNPs in LD with the lead SNP (r2 > 0.6). The lead SNP at this locus was rs80306347 (HR = 3.37; 95% CI = 2.23-5.09; P = 7.39x10-09). This is an intronic variant located in intron 5 of the LRP1B gene (ENSG00000168702). A second genome-wide significant SNP nominated as independent by FUMA (given the r2 < 0.6)20 was present at this locus (HR = 3.48; 95% CI = 2.28-5.32; P = 8.49x10-09). rs116725215 is also an intronic variant located in intron 2 of LRP1B. This gene encodes the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor-related protein 1B, a member of the LDL receptor superfamily. LRP1B is a receptor for ApoE-carrying lipoproteins and is highly expressed in the adult human brain (Supplementary Fig. 5a,d)21. In addition, LRP1B was found to be significantly upregulated in excitatory neurons of the anterior cingulate cortex of PDD compared to PD and control brain samples (Supplementary Fig. 6)22. Similar to other LDL receptors, it is involved in the intracellular processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP)23. Therefore, LRP1B constitutes a promising candidate for regulating the development of dementia in PD. Conditional analysis did not confirm independence of variants rs80306347 and rs116725215, as conditioning on either SNP abolished genome-wide significance at the LRP1B locus (Supplementary Fig. 4c-d and Supplementary Table 3). rs28363070 is an intronic variant in the SLC6A3 gene (ENSG00000142319) in chromosome 5 and was associated with progression to dementia with genome-wide significance (HR = 4.42; 95% CI = 2.62-7.45; P = 2.32x10-08). SLC6A3 encodes the dopamine transporter (DAT) highly expressed in the brain, specifically in nigro-striatal neurons (Supplementary Fig. 5b). It controls dopamine reuptake at the presynaptic terminals of dopaminergic neurons, thereby regulating dopamine availability in the striatum. Given its prominent role in the metabolism of dopamine, there has been long-standing interest in this gene in relation to the pathophysiology of PD. For example, while genome-wide association studies have not found an association between SLC6A3 variants and the risk of PD, the 9-repeat (9R) allele of the 40-base pair variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) polymorphism in the 3’-UTR region (rs28363170) has been shown to increase dopamine binding in the striatum, which could in theory confer increased vulnerability to neurotoxicity by oxidation due to enhanced dopamine neuronal uptake24, 25. Interestingly, PD cases carrying the 9R allele have been shown to perform worse on cognitive tasks linked to working memory and executive functions, and decreased activation of cortico-striatal loops while planning a set-shift task26. The effect of the SLC6A3 in this study is heterogeneous in that only one of the cohorts contributed to this signal (Supplementary Fig. 7d), and thus the meta-analysis does not support a definite association of variation at SLC6A3 with the development of dementia in PD.

Finally, variant rs60707664 on chromosome 6 was associated with progression to dementia (HR = 2.31; 95% CI = 1.72-3.11; P = 2.44x10-08). This variant is intergenic and SSR1 (ENSG00000124783) is the nearest gene. SSR1 is a ubiquitously expressed gene (Supplementary Fig. 5c) that encodes the translocon-associated protein subunit alpha (TRAPA), one of the four subunits of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane receptor complex TRAP that binds calcium to the ER membrane and is associated with regulation of protein translocation across the ER membrane. Interestingly, ER dysfunction has been shown to contribute to the pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative diseases including PD27, 28.

Forest plots of the GWSS meta-analysis (Supplementary Fig. 7a-d) show that effect size and direction are consistent for the APOE and SSR1 loci across all cohorts. In the LRP1B locus, a strong association with progression to PDD was observed in the TPD and OPDC cohorts, but not in AMP-PD (note that due to reduced number of events in individuals in the DIGPD cohort, infinite estimates were generated by the Cox proportional hazards analysis of this cohort). Several factors could be contributing to these differential observations between cohorts, namely the reduced event rate in the AMP-PD cohort (3.61%) compared to TPD and OPDC (7.3% and 12.7%, respectively). This could in turn be related to the younger age at baseline and shorter follow-up times in the AMP-PD cohorts, since increasing age is the most significant clinical risk factor for the development of dementia in PD (Supplementary Table 1). To evaluate the effect of the different event rates on the power to detect a genome-wide significant effect on dementia-free survival, we modelled statistical power for a hypothetical SNP with minor allele frequency 0.02 and an hazard ratio of 2, assuming a median time to the event of 4.5 years, under an additive genetic risk model (Supplementary Fig. 8). The sample size required to detect such a SNP with genome-wide significance at 80% statistical power is approximately 50% and 70% larger at the event rate observed in the AMP-PD cohort than at the event rates observed in the TPD and OPDC cohorts, respectively, thus demonstrating how a low event rate can hinder the ability of the survival analysis to detect significant effects of variants with rare minor allele frequencies. We also explored the possibility that heterogeneity in the AMP-PD dataset could be contributing to an apparent discrepancy of results across cohorts. AMP-PD is a clinically and genetically harmonised cohort, but each individual study has distinct design and inclusion criteria. We therefore analysed the LRP1B locus in each of the studies independently, and subsequently meta-analysed the results. Given the study design and reduced sample size of the independent studies, not all of them contributed to the meta-analysis. For example, the BioFIND samples did not include PDD cases, thus being excluded from the survival analysis. In the case of SURE-PD3, the low event rate (1.3%) combined with the rare frequency of the LRP1B allele meant that no PDD cases carried the allele of interest, therefore generating infinite estimates in the Cox proportional hazards analysis. Despite the decrease in power that comes with analysing smaller cohorts, the meta-analysis again showed that the LRP1B variant rs80306347 was associated with progression to dementia with genome-wide significance (HR = 3.88; 95% CI = 2.55-5.87; P = 1.609x10-10) and the forest plot (Supplementary Fig. 7e) demonstrates that effect size and direction are consistent across all studies that have contributed to the meta-analysis (i.e., from which valid estimates were generated).

Colocalization analysis

We did not identify proxy coding variants in high linkage disequilibrium (LD) with the lead variants in LRP1B, SLC6A3 and SSR1. To determine if any of the GWSS genome-wide significant signals are involved in the regulation of gene expression, we performed colocalization analysis using expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) from eQTLGen29 and PsychENCODE30, which represent large human blood and brain gene expression datasets, respectively. We found no colocalization between PDD GWSS loci and eQTLs from either dataset, indicating that there is no evidence of shared causal variants driving both gene expression and the four association signals for PDD progression (Supplementary Table 4). Of note, LRP1B is not expressed in blood, thus no LRP1B eQTLs (significant or non- significant) were available from eQTLGen (Supplementary Fig. 5a). Next, we explored whether non-coding GWSS significant signals could have a role in alternative splicing by performing colocalization analysis using cortical and nigral splicing QTLs (sQTLs) from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) dataset31. Again, we found no colocalization of PDD GWSS loci and sQTLs (Supplementary Table 5). We also generated regional associations plots for transcript expression QTLs (tQTL) from PsychENCODE and PDD GWSS signals in the region surrounding LRP1B, which upon visual assessment did not suggest the presence of signal colocalization between LRP1B loci and tQTLs (Supplementary Fig. 9). Despite the power limitations of existing QTL datasets, the available data does not currently support LRP1B signals regulating the expression of transcript isoforms via alternative splicing.

APOE and LRP1B interaction

One of the ligands of LRP1B at the cell surface is APOE. To investigate whether the LRP1B signal was independent of APOE status, we defined four groups of PD patients in the combined cohorts (n = 3,694): non-carriers of either APOE ε4 or LRP1B rs80306347 alleles, exclusive carriers of APOE ε4 allele, exclusive carriers of LRP1B rs80306347 allele and carriers of both alleles. We then used a Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model in the combined cohorts to calculate the hazards of survival dementia-free in each of these groups, adjusting for sex, age at disease onset or diagnosis, the first five PCs and the cohort each individual originated from (Figure 2a). Compared to non-carriers, participants exclusively carrying the LRP1B rs80306347 allele had increased risk of progressing to PDD (HR = 2.19; 95% CI =1.23-3.88; P = 0.00730). In addition, we also performed survival analysis controlling for APOE status (Fig. 2b-c). An increased hazard of progression to PDD was present in LRP1B rs80306347 carriers in both APOE ε4 allele carriers (HR = 3.16; 95% CI = 1.78-5.61; P = 8.54x10-05) and APOE ε4 allele non-carriers (HR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.21-3.82; P = 0.00947), confirming that the effect of rs80306347 is independent of the effect of APOE. Finally, individuals carrying both APOE ε4 and LRP1B rs80306347 alleles had a much higher hazard of progression to PDD than carriers of each allele separately (HR = 7.69; 95% CI = 4.42-13.4; P = 5.76x10-13), indicating increased risk of progression to PDD and possibly a functional interaction between the two alleles (Fig. 2a).

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Interaction between APOE and LRP1B rs80306347 signals. a Kaplan-Meier curve for dementia-free survival based on APOE ɛ4 and LRP1B rs80306347 carrier status of PD patients. Compared to non-carriers of either allele, LRP1B rs80306347 carriers had an HR of progression to PDD of 2.19 (95% CI = 1.23-3.88; P = 0.00730), while APOE ɛ4 carriers had an HR of 2.43 (95% CI = 1.88-3.15; P = 1.40x10-11). Carriers of both alleles had the most significant increase in the hazards ratio of progressing to PDD (HR = 7.69; 95% CI = 4.42- 13.40; P = 5.76x10-13). b Kaplan-Meier curve for dementia-free survival based on LRP1B rs80306347 carrier status in PD APOE ɛ4 carriers. c Kaplan-Meier curve for dementia-free survival based on LRP1B rs80306347 carrier status in PD APOE ɛ4 non-carriers. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazards models in the combined cohorts (n = 3,964 individuals) at the specified loci. HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; P, p-value.

Candidate gene analysis

Several other genes have been suggested to increase the risk of cognitive decline or dementia in PD. One of the most widely reported genes is GBA, which has also been described as a risk factor for PD and an earlier age of disease onset32, 33. The non-GD-causing GBA PD-risk variant E365K (rs2230288, previously known as E326K) has been described in association with cognitive progression in PD12, 13. We therefore performed a candidate loci survival analysis in the combined cohorts (n = 3,694) based on E365K carrier status, which confirmed a significant hazard ratio for progression to dementia (HR = 2.33; 95% CI = 1.50-3.61; P = 1.64 x10-04; Fig. 3a; Supplementary Table 6). In addition, GBA Sanger sequencing data was available for 1,793 individuals originating from the DIGPD and TPD cohorts. Mutations causing Gaucher’s disease and PD risk variants were combined for survival analysis and were present in 9.3% of the cases (Supplementary Table 7). In this subset of patients, GBA risk variant and GD-mutation carriers had a HR for progression to PDD of 2.02 (95% CI = 1.21-3.32; P = 0.007), confirming the observation from several previous studies that GBA mutations increase the risk of dementia (Supplementary Fig. 10)11–13. A similar candidate loci approach in the combined cohorts confirmed the strong association of APOE ε4 carrier status (HR = 2.54; 95% CI = 1.99-3.24; P = 8.16x10-14) and LRP1B rs80306347 carrier status (HR = 2.64; 95% CI = 1.76-3.95; P = 2.34x10-06) with earlier progression to PDD (Fig. 3b-c).

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Survival curves of candidate gene analysis. a Kaplan-Meier curve for dementia-free survival based on GBA E365K carrier status of PD patients. b Kaplan-Meier curve for dementia-free survival based on APOE ɛ4 carrier status of PD patients. c Kaplan-Meier curve for dementia-free survival based on LRP1B rs80306347 carrier status of PD patients. d Kaplan-Meier curve for dementia-free survival based on LRP1B rs116725215 carrier status of PD patients. Statistical analysis was conducted per locus using Cox proportional hazards models in the combined cohorts (n = 3,964 individuals). HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; P, p-value.

Multiplications of SNCA can cause autosomal dominant PD that is often associated with a high prevalence of dementia34. In addition, common variants in SNCA have been reported to increase the risk of cognitive decline or dementia in PD patients, as well as the risk of DLB, a related parkinsonism disorder in which dementia is an early feature35–37. We investigated five SNCA variants previously reported in the literature for association with dementia in PD or DLB, but none were shown to increase the risk of progression to PDD (Supplementary Table 6). Some of these variants have only been reported in small studies37, while rs356219 has shown inconsistent results across studies10, 38, 39, indicating that there is not enough evidence to support a role for common SNCA variants in the risk of cognitive decline or dementia in PD. Importantly, variants identified in DLB case-control GWAS studies36 do not appear to contribute to risk of progression to dementia in PD, suggesting that the mechanisms leading to DLB and PDD do not entirely overlap.

Some studies have found that the MAPT H1 haplotype is a risk factor for cognitive decline in PD and can increase the susceptibility to DLB9, 14, 15, 40. However, this finding has not been consistently replicated10, 41. Similarly, we did not find any association between MAPT haplotypes and time to dementia in PD (Supplementary Table 6).

Recently, common variants in RIMS2, TMEM108 and WWOX have been suggested to associate with faster progression to PDD41. Using similar methodology and sample size, we did not replicate these findings (Supplementary Table 6), indicating that further studies are needed to confirm the role of these genes in the risk of cognitive decline in PD.

AD and PD genetic risk scores in PDD

Given the role of both APOE and LRP1B in APP metabolism, we next investigated the overlap between the AD risk profile with that of PD cases with and without dementia. We calculated the normalised individual-level genetic risk score in each of the cohorts, based on the summary statistics from a recent large-scale GWAS meta-analysis of Alzheimer’s disease42. A generalised linear model was used to test the association of AD genetic risk scores with dementia status in each cohort, with results further meta-analysed using a random-effects model (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 11a). PDD was associated with a higher genetic risk score for Alzheimer’s disease (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.31- 1.64, P = 7.22x10-11). In contrast, the normalised genetic risk score for Parkinson’s disease, derived from the latest PD GWAS study32, was similar between PDD and non-demented PD cases (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.84-1.18, P = 0.9698) (Fig. 4b and Supplementary Fig. 11c). This suggests that the genetic risk of developing PDD overlaps with the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, potentially identifying APP metabolism as mechanistically relevant for the progression to dementia in the context of Parkinson’s disease. Interestingly, in a subset of PD samples from the AMP-PD cohort who have been tested for Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), PDD cases had decreased amyloid β (Aβ) 42 levels (median ± interquartile range (IQR): 581 ± 493 pg/mL vs 867 ± 478 pg/mL, P = 0.001193, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and increased total Tau (208 ± 129 pg/mL vs 158 ± 70 pg/mL, P = 0.01617, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and p-Tau181 (18.3 ± 14.3 pg/mL vs 13.3 ± 5.84 pg/mL, P = 0.002544, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) levels at baseline (Fig. 5a), supporting the hypothesis that APP metabolism is important for the development of PDD. In addition, APOE ε4 carriers also had significantly decreased CSF Aβ42 levels at baseline (median ± IQR: 689 ± 386 pg/mL vs 896 ± 543 pg/mL, P = 1.7x10-06, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and subsequent time points, with no change in total Tau or p-Tau181 levels (Fig. 5b). This is in keeping with results from previous genome-wide association studies of AD biomarkers, showing an association of APOE with abnormal amyloid status in either CSF or PET scans43–46. APOE status is the most significant genetic determinant to the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease42, and was also confirmed to be significantly associated with the risk of progression to PDD in individuals previously diagnosed with PD. Therefore, to establish that the association between Alzheimer’s disease genetic risk score and progression to PDD is not exclusively due to the overlap of the APOE signal between these two conditions, we adjusted the generalised linear models for APOE ε4 carrier status. When adjusting for APOE ε4 carrier status, there was no significant association between PDD and the genetic risk score for Alzheimer’s disease (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94-1.52, P = 0.1370), indicating that APOE ε4 carrier status alone is driving the risk of progression to dementia among AD GWAS top hits.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease genetic risk scores (GRS). a-b Violin plots depicting the distribution of the meta-analysis of z-transformed Alzheimer’s disease (a) and PD genetic risk scores (b) in PD and PDD. The central line of the boxplots indicates the median, the box limits indicate the first and third quartiles, the whiskers indicate ±1.5*IQR, and the data points indicate the outliers. c-d Survival Kaplan-Meier curves for dementia-free survival of PD patients based on the stratification of AD-GRS into low-, middle-, and high-risk tertiles, either including (c) or excluding APOE (d).

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

CSF measurements of AD biomarkers. Boxplots representing the measurements (in pg/mL) of the CSF biomarkers Aβ42, p-Tau181 and total Tau in a subset of individuals from the AMP-PD cohort (n = 352) across time (M0 = study baseline, M12 = 12 months, M24 = 24 months, M36 = 36 months). a CSF biomarker levels by phenotype (n = 28 PDD and n = 324 PD cases). b CSF biomarker levels by APOE Ɛ4 allele carrier status (n = 86 APOE Ɛ4 allele carriers and n = 266 APOE Ɛ4 allele non-carriers). Boxplots display a median line, the box limits indicate the first and third quartiles, the whiskers indicate ±1.5*IQR, and the data points indicate the outliers. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare medians across phenotypic groups. Significance threshold: *P <0.05, **P <0.01, ***P <0.001, ****P <0.0001, n.s. not significant.

Finally, we asked whether a higher Alzheimer’s disease genetic risk score could be contributing to decreased dementia-free survival, i.e., faster progression to PDD. We performed survival analysis using CPH models to calculate the hazards of survival dementia- free after stratification of PD individuals into low-, middle-, and high-risk based on AD genetic risk scores. Individuals in the higher tertile of AD-GRS had faster progression to dementia (HR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.72-3.14, P = 3.63x10-08), but as with the overall risk of PDD, faster progression to dementia was abolished after exclusion of the APOE signal (HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.83-1.54, P = 0.4418, Fig. 4c-d).

Discussion

We have conducted a large genome-wide survival study of progression to dementia in PD patients. APOE has consistently been implicated as a risk factor for idiopathic PD, PDD and DLB9, 19, 32, 35, 36, 47. Our results confirm that APOE ε4 is also a significant contributing factor in the rate of progression to PDD, while a candidate gene approach confirmed the role of non- GD-pathogenic GBA E365K PD risk variant in accelerating cognitive decline in PD. In addition, we identified three novel loci associated with progression to dementia.

LRP1B belongs to the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor family and is highly expressed in the brain21. Several members of the LDL family have been implicated in cellular processes relevant to neurodegeneration, including tau uptake48 and amyloid precursor protein (APP) trafficking, processing, and clearing49. Whether APP is processed by beta- and gamma- secretases to Aβ in the amyloidogenic pathway or by alpha-secretases in the non- amyloidogenic pathway depends on its subcellular localisation, as beta-secretase is most active in the acidic pH of the endosome, which appears to be a key site for the production of Aβ50. Therefore, modulation of intracellular APP tracking by LDL receptors with opposing activities is postulated to be a crucial determinant of APP processing and subsequent neurodegeneration51. For example, binding of LRP1 and LRAD3 to APP at the cell surface leads to its enhanced endocytic trafficking and increased processing to Aβ52, 53. In contrast, binding of LRP1B and LRP10 to APP leads to decreased trafficking of APP to the endosome, thus resulting in reduced amyloidogenic processing of APP23, 54. LRP10 mutants that disrupt the distribution of LRP10 from the trans-Golgi network to early endosomes lead to increased presence of APP in the endosomes and consequently to increased amyloidogenic processing of APP54. Interestingly, loss of function mutations in LRP10 have recently been implicated in familial PD55. Similarly, due to a slower rate of endocytosis which leads to APP accumulation at the cell surface, the binding of APP to LRP1B receptors reduces APP processing into Aβ and increases secretion of soluble APP instead, suggesting that enhanced LRP1B activity could protect against the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease.19 Interestingly, a genome-wide study comparing elderly individuals without cognitive decline and those with late onset Alzheimer’s disease identified variants in LRP1B as protective against cognitive decline in old age56.

It is likely that dementia in PD can be driven by distinct mechanisms. Research in dementia with Lewy bodies, a condition closely related to PDD, has shown that GBA is more strongly associated with risk of “pure” DLB, while APOE ε4 is more strongly associated with DLB with AD co-pathology57, 58. This suggests that the genetic drivers of dementia in α- synucleinopathies are different in cases with and without Aβ co-pathology, with GBA predisposing to pure Lewy body pathology and APOE predisposing to concomitant Aβ deposition. While PD neuropathology is primarily characterised by deposition of α-synuclein aggregates, dementia in PD can also be associated with Aβ deposition59–61. This leads to the question of whether Aβ metabolism could also play an important role in the development of PDD. In fact, increased cortical Aβ deposition has been shown to be associated with a faster progression to dementia in PD61, 62, and a low CSF Aβ42-to-total tau ratio at baseline has been associated with cognitive decline in early PD63. Our results on AD CSF biomarkers also suggest that PDD is associated with increased Aβ brain pathology, and it is likely that APOE ε4 is the main driver of this association. Furthermore, APOE is known to facilitate endocytosis of Aβ via LDL receptors at the cell surface64, which could offer a mechanistic link between APOE and LRP1B and a possible explanation as to why PD carriers of both APOE ε4 and LRP1B rs80306347-C alleles appear to have faster progression to dementia. Nonetheless, there is evidence that APOE ε4 can also contribute to neurodegeneration by non-amyloidogenic mechanisms: APOE ε4 allele carriers can present with “pure” Lewy body dementia (LBD); α-synuclein pathology is increased in LBD APOE ε4 carriers with minimal amyloid pathology, compared to age-matched non-carriers; APOE ε4 exacerbates α- synuclein pathology and leads to worse neurodegeneration and cognitive performances in mice65, 66.

We have identified SLC6A3 and SSR1 as promising novel candidates associated with progression to PD dementia. SLC6A3 encodes the dopamine transporter DAT and is essential in the regulation of dopamine metabolism and neurotransmission. Dopaminergic deficits have been suggested as contributing to cognitive impairment in PD67, highlighting the potential of SLC6A3 to influence cognitive performance in these patients. Polymorphisms in SLC6A3 have been shown to have a functional impact on dopamine metabolism and responses to exogenous dopamine68, which could indicate that the effect of SLC6A3 on cognition could be mediated by changes in dopamine reuptake that would affect both endogenous and therapeutic dopamine. Since only one of the studies in the meta-analysis was found to be driving the signal at this locus, more research is needed to support a role for SLC6A3 in the progression to PDD. Finally, the variant rs60707664 on chromosome 6p24.3 is located 7.5 kb upstream of the SSR1 gene. SSR1 encodes the translocon-associated protein subunit alpha, a subunit of the signal sequence receptor (SSR), a glycosylated ER membrane receptor associated with protein translocation across the ER membrane. ER dysfunction leads to the accumulation of misfolded proteins and triggers ER stress, which in turn activates the unfolded protein response (UPR) that has been shown to play a role in PD pathogenesis27. Remarkably, SSR1 expression has recently been shown to be upregulated in an early PD mouse model and to be highly correlated with the loss of TH neurons, making SSR1 a plausible candidate for neurodegeneration in PD69.

In conclusion, this large genome-wide study identifies several interesting and plausible new gene candidates associated with faster progression to dementia in PD, while also corroborating the importance of the previously described APOE and GBA variants for cognitive outcomes in PD. In addition, we provide further evidence for the role of β-amyloid metabolism in the development of dementia in PD, which has important therapeutic implications, as strategies aimed at Alzheimer’s disease could also prove effective in PD patients at risk of dementia.

Methods

Patient cohorts

We have studied four independent longitudinal PD cohorts: Tracking Parkinson’s (TPD)16, Oxford Parkinson’s Disease Centre Discovery Cohort (OPDC)17, Accelerating Medicines Partnership: Parkinson’s Disease (AMP-PD, v2.5), which consists of harmonised data from multiple cohorts18, and Drug Interaction With Genes in Parkinson’s Disease (DIGPD), comprising a total of 3,964 participants after clinical and genetic data cleaning (Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1). All participants were diagnosed with PD according to the Queen Square Brain Bank criteria70. Participants were excluded from the analysis if an alternative diagnosis was made during the follow-up period (including a diagnosis of DLB) and/or the probability of a PD diagnosis as assessed by a clinician at the last available visit was less than 90%. In AMP-PD, only individuals in the PD study arm were included. Criteria for PDD was based on the Movement Disorders Society (MDS) taskforce PDD diagnostic criteria3, 41. Specifically, participants were classified as having PDD if they had adjusted MoCA scores < 21/30, at least two cognitive domains impaired in the MoCA scale (attention/serial sevens ≤ 2/3; language / verbal fluency 0/1; memory / delayed recall ≤ 4/5; visuospatial/executive ≤ 4/5), a cognitive deficit severe enough to impact on activities of daily living (MDS-Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) part I 1.1 ≥ 2 score), and absence of severe depression (MDS-UPDRS part I 1.3 < 4), except participants from the DIGPD cohort, for whom only MMSE scores were available together with a clinician assigned diagnosis of dementia. Participants were excluded from the study (left censored) if they met criteria for PDD at study baseline (Supplementary Table 8).

Time-to-event was calculated as the number of years from disease onset (or disease diagnosis, in the case of the AMP-PD cohort) until the first visit where criteria for PDD was met or until study withdrawal due to dementia. Individuals with missing data regarding time- to-event or event classification were also excluded from the study. Comparisons across cohorts were performed in R (R Project for Statistical Computing, RRID:SCR_001905; version 4.1.3; https://www.R-project.org/) using Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction (rstatix package, version 0.7.0; RRID:SCR_021240; https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rstatix) for categorical variables, and Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s test for post hoc multiple pairwise comparisons (stats package, version 4.1.3; https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/stats/html/00Index.html) for continuous variables, with p-values adjusted by the Bonferroni method. Significance was set at α=0.05.

Data Quality Control

Whole-genome sequence data was available from participants in AMP-PD cohorts. The remainder of samples were genotyped with the Illumina HumanCoreExome array (TPD), Illumina HumanCoreExome-12 v1.1 or Illumina Infinium HumanCoreExome-24 v1.1 arrays (OPDC) and the Illumina Infinium Multi-Ethnic Global (MEGA) array (DIGPD). Sample quality control (QC) included the exclusion of samples with call rates <98%, samples with excess heterozygosity (defined as samples deviating more than two standard deviations from the mean heterozygosity rate), samples with a mismatch between clinical sex and genetically determined sex from chromosome X heterogeneity, and samples from related individuals (pi- hat > 0.125). Variants with missingness rate >5%, minor allele frequency (MAF) <0.01 and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) P <1x10-08 were excluded. We opted for a more liberal HWE threshold given the case-case study design and to account for the fact that disease- associated variants which may deviate from HWE could also be associated with disease progression. To identify the ancestry, variants in linkage disequilibrium were removed and samples clustered against the HapMap3 reference panel, using principal component analysis. Individuals who deviated more than 6 standard deviations from the mean of the first 10 principal components of the HapMap3 CEU+TSI population were excluded from the analysis (Supplementary Fig. 12a). After extraction of European-ancestry samples, principal components were re-calculated in the study data to use as covariates. The genotyping array data was then imputed against the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC) reference panel (version r1.1 2016; http://www.haplotype-reference-consortium.org/) in the Michigan Imputation Server (RRID:SCR_017579; https://imputationserver.sph.umich.edu)71 using Minimac4 (version 1.0.0; https://genome.sph.umich.edu/wiki/Minimac4 version 1.0.0). Imputed variants were excluded if the imputation info R2 score was ≤ 0.3. Following imputation, variants with missingness > 5%, minor allele frequencies <1% and in extreme Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium (P < 1x10-08) were also excluded. Data cleaning was performed using PLINK v1.9 (RRID:SCR_001757; https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/)72.

Time-to-event GWSS and meta-analysis

A time-to-event genome-wide survival study (GWSS) was performed in R (version 4.1.2) in each cohort, using the Cox proportional hazards function in the survival package (version 3.2.13; RRID:SCR_021137; https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival), in which time to PDD was regressed against each SNP, with age at onset or diagnosis, sex and first five principal components as covariates. AMP-PD summary statistics were converted from hg38 to hg19 using the binary liftOver tool (RRID:SCR_018160; https://genome.sph.umich.edu/wiki/LiftOver). The summary results from each cohort were then meta-analysed using METAL software in a random effects model, using genomic control correction (version released on the 25/03/2011; RRID:SCR_002013; http://csg.sph.umich.edu//abecasis/Metal/)73. The genomic inflation factor (λgc) for each cohort varied between 0.710 and 1.003. After the meta-analysis, the λgc was 1.048 (Supplementary Fig. 12b). Upon completion of the meta-analysis, variants that were not present in all samples were excluded, as well as variants with minor allele frequency variability >15% across studies. Variants were also excluded if the p-value for the Cochran’s Q-test for heterogeneity was less than 0.05 and the I2 statistic was ≤80%.

Forest plots of variants of interest were prepared using the R package forestplot (version 2.0.1; https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=forestplot). Results of the meta-analysis were annotated using FUMA (Functional Mapping and Annotation of Genome Wide Association Studies, RRID:SCR_017521; version 1.3.8; https://fuma.ctglab.nl/)16. Regional association plots were generated in LocusZoom (RRID:SCR_021374; http://locuszoom.org/)74. LDproxy (version 5.2; https://ldlink.nci.nih.gov/?tab=ldproxy)75 was used to identify variants in high linkage disequilibrium with variants of interest.

Tissue and cell-type specificity measures

Specificity represents the proportion of a gene’s total expression attributable to one cell type/tissue. To determine specificity of a gene to a tissue or cell-type, specificity values from three independent gene expression datasets were generated. Briefly, these datasets included 1) bulk-tissue RNA-sequencing of 53 human tissues from the Genotype-Tissue Expression consortium (GTEx, version 8; RRID:SCR_013042)31; 2) human single-nucleus RNA-sequencing of the middle temporal gyrus from the Allen Institute for Brain Science (AIBS, Allen Cell Types Database - Human MTG Smart-Seq 2018 dataset, available from celltypes.brain-map.org/rnaseq; RRID:SCR_014806)76; and 3) human single-nucleus RNA- sequencing of the substantia nigra77. Generation of specificity values for GTEx and AIBS were previously described in Chia et al 35. Briefly, specificity values for GTEx were generated using code modified from a previous publication (https://github.com/jbryois/scRNA_disease)78, to reduce redundancy among brain regions and to include protein- and non-protein-coding genes. Specificity values for the AIBS-derived dataset were generated using gene-level exonic reads and the ‘generate.celltype.data’ function of the EWCE R package (version 1.2.0)79. Likewise, specificity values from Agarwal et al. were generated using EWCE. Specificity values for all three datasets and the code used to generate these values are openly available at https://github.com/RHReynolds/MarkerGenes80.

Colocalization analysis

To investigate whether there is an overlap between PDD loci and expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), we used the coloc R package (version 5.1.0; https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/colocr/index.html)81. We also used the R package colochelpR (version 0.99.0)82 to help prepare datasets for use with coloc. We took a Bayesian inference approach to test the H4 null hypothesis that there is a shared causal variant associated with both progression to PDD and gene expression regulation. The Bayesian inference approach additionally computes the posterior probability (PP) that there is no association with either trait (H0), there is association with the PDD trait but not the eQTL trait (H1), there is association with the eQTL trait but not the PDD trait (H2), and that there is association with both traits, but the causal variants are independent (H3). We extracted all the genes within 1 Mb of each significant locus in the PDD GWSS. Coloc was run using default p1=10−4, p2=10−4, and p12=10−5 priors (p1 and p2 are the prior probability that any random SNP in the region is associated with trait 1 and 2, respectively, while p12 is the prior probability that any random SNP in the region is associated with both traits). A PPH4 > 0.9 was considered evidence for the presence of a shared variant between traits, i.e., signal colocalization. Cis- eQTL data were obtained from 1) eQTLGen, comprising bulk blood-derived gene expression from 31,684 individuals (https://www.eqtlgen.org/cis-eqtls.html, accessed on the 07/06/2021) and 2) PsychENCODE, comprising gene expression from bulk RNA sequencing from the prefrontal cortex of 1,387 individuals (http://resource.psychencode.org/, accessed on the 07/06/2021)29, 83. Next, to understand if LRP1B, SSR1 or SLC6A3 loci regulate alternative splicing, we used a similar approach using frontal cortex and substantia nigra sQTL data from the GTEx v8 database containing all variant-gene associations from 183 and 100 individuals, respectively, based on LeafCutter (version 0.2.9; RRID:SCR_017639; https://davidaknowles.github.io/leafcutter/)84 intron excision phenotypes. For LRP1B, we tested the alternative splicing from 8 different introns. In addition, FDR-filtered transcript-per- million (TPM) tQTLs (FDR <0.001) were obtained from PsychENCODE and used to generate regional association plots overlapping with LRP1B signals. A full colocalization analysis for tQTLs was not possible due to the unavailability of unfiltered tQTL summary statistics from PsychENCODE.

Conditional analysis

To understand if one or more genome-wide significant variants at the same locus were contributing to the signal, we performed conditional analysis on single SNPs using a conditional and joint association analysis approach. We used the GWSS meta-analysis summary statistics and the entire AMP-PD cohort (n = 10,418) as the reference sample for linkage disequilibrium estimation. The reference sample was subjected to the same QC steps as described above. We then used CGTA-COJO software (version 1.93.0 beta for Linux; https://yanglab.westlake.edu.cn/software/gcta/#Overview)85 to perform association analysis conditional on SNPs of interest.

Signal interaction between APOE and LRP1B

Given the affinity of LRP1B for ApoE carrying lipoproteins, we conducted a survival analysis based on APOE ε4 haplotype and LRP1B rs80306347 carrier status to understand if the effect of LRP1B rs80306347 signal was dependant on APOE. APOE genotypes were inferred from the imputed genotypes of rs7412 and rs429358 variants. Participants of the combined cohorts (n = 3,964) were grouped according to the presence of the two markers either simultaneously or exclusively, and a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at onset or diagnosis, gender, the first five principal components and a cohort term was performed. We also conditioned the analysis on APOE ε4 carrier status by performing a survival analysis of LRP1B rs80306347 on APOE ε4 carriers and non-carriers separately.

Candidate loci analysis

We additionally performed a candidate loci analysis of specific loci or variants of interest in the combined cohorts to increase power (n = 3,964), using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age at onset or diagnosis, sex, the first five principal components and a cohort term. The regions of interest consisted of genetic variants or loci previously identified in association with cognitive impairment in PD and/or DLB: APOE ε4 haplotype (rs429358)8–10, GBA E365K variant (rs2230288)11, 12, SNCA (rs356219, rs7680557, rs7681440, rs11931074, rs7684318)35–37, 86, MAPT H1 haplotype (rs1800547)9, 14, 15, RIMS2 (rs182987047), TMEM108 (rs138073281), and WWOX (rs8050111)41. In addition, participants from DIGPD and a subset of individuals from the TPD study were Sanger sequenced for GBA (n = 1,793). We performed a survival analysis as above based on GBA carrier status, for which we defined GBA mutation carriers as individuals with at least one Gaucher disease (GD)-causing mutation or PD risk factor (Supplementary Table 7).

Genetic risk scores

To understand if there is overlap in the risk of development of PDD and the risk of PD or AD, we performed a genetic risk score (GRS) analysis using PLINK v1.9 software72. Scores were calculated using the summary statistics from the largest PD GWAS to date and the 2019 genome-wide association meta-analysis of AD, respectively32, 42. Only the independent genome-wide significant risk signals were used in the analysis. Scores were then z- transformed and added as a covariate in a logistic regression model, together with age at onset, sex and the first five PCs. Each cohort was analysed independently, and results were meta-analysed using the meta R package (version 5.1-1; RRID:SCR_019055; https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=meta)87. We conducted the AD-GRS analysis also without the APOE signal to investigate if the effect of AD-GRS in the risk of developing PDD was mediated by factors independent of APOE. For the survival analysis based on AD-GRS, individuals were stratified into low-, middle-, and high-risk tertiles of raw AD-GRS. We used Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age at onset, sex and the first five PCs in each cohort; results were then meta-analysed with the R package meta.

Association of clinical phenotype and APOE genotype with CSF biomarkers

A subset of AMP-PD participants (from the BioFIND and PPMI studies) included in the analysis have longitudinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD biomarker data available (n = 434). We investigated the association of phenotype (PDD vs PD) and APOE ε4 carrier status with average levels of amyloid β 42 (Aβ42), total Tau and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p- Tau181) using unpaired two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (R stats package, version 4.1.2) at baseline, 12, 24 and 36 months of follow-up. Significance was set at α=0.05.

Statistical power modelling

The R package survSNP (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survSNP/index.html; version 0.25)88 was used to model statistical power for a hypothetical SNP with minor allele frequency of 2% and a hazards ratio of 2. The time-to-event was fixed at 4.5 years. Modelling took into account the event rates observed in the different cohorts.

Data availability

Meta-analysis summary statistics are available for download from https://pdgenetics.org/resources. TPD data is available upon access request from https://www.trackingparkinsons.org.uk/about-1/data/. BioFIND, PPMI, PDBP and SURE-PD3 cohorts were accessed from Accelerating Medicines Partnership: Parkinson’s Disease (AMP-PD) and data is available upon registration at https://www.amp-pd.org/. OPDC data is available upon request from the Dementias Platform UK (https://portal.dementiasplatform.uk/Apply). DIGPD data is available upon request to the principal investigator (JC Corvol, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris). HapMap phase 3 data (HapMap3) is available for download at ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/hapmap/. The Ashkenazi Jewish population panel is accessible at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gds (accession ID: GSE23636). Cis-QTL data were obtained from eQTLGen (https://www.eqtlgen.org/cis-eqtls.html) and PsychENCODE (http://resource.psychencode.org). FDR-filtered tQTL data was obtained from PsychENCODE (http://resource.psychencode.org/). Cortical sQTL data was accessed from the GTEx v8 database (https://gtexportal.org/home/). GTEx bulk-tissue RNA-seq data is available at https://www.gtexportal.org/home/datasets. AIBS human single-nucleus RNA-seq data is available at https://portal.brain-map.org/atlases-and-data/rnaseq. Human single-nucleus RNA-seq of the substantia nigra data can be accessed from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/ (accession ID: GSE140231). Summary statistics from PD GWAS (Nalls et al, 2019) used to perform GRS analysis available from https://pdgenetics.org/resources.

Code availability

Code used in the analysis is available from https://github.com/huw-morris-lab/PDD_GWSS (doi:10.5281/zenodo.6535455). Analysis was performed using open-source tools as described in the Methods section.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon request to the authors. Code used in the analysis is available online at https://github.com/huw-morris-lab/PDD_GWSS.

Author Contributions

H.R.M. and R.R. designed the study. H.R.M. supervised the study. D.G.G., M.T.M.H., Y.B.- S., J.H. and H.R.M. conceived and led the TPD and OPDC clinical cohorts, as well as performed data management and curation. J.C.C., A.B., S.L and J.F. conceived and led the DIGPD clinical cohort, as well as performed data management and curation. C.B. and L.H. performed genotyping and GBA Sanger sequencing of TPD samples. R.R. interrogated all the clinical data for the current study and performed quality control of AMP-PD genomic data. M.M.X.T. performed quality control of TPD, OPDC and DIGPD genomic data. R.R. performed the genome-wide survival analysis, candidate gene analysis, genetic risk score analysis and biomarker analysis. A.C.M. performed the colocalization analysis, with the contribution of R.H.R. R.H.R. wrote the pipeline for bulk tissue and single cell specificity. M.S. wrote the pipeline for the genome-wide survival analysis. M.R. consulted on the colocalization analysis. R.R. wrote the initial manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript.

Competing Interests statement

H.R.M. reports paid consultancy from Roche and research grants from Parkinson’s UK, Cure Parkinson’s Trust, PSP Association, CBD Solutions, Drake Foundation, Medical Research Council (MRC), Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr Morris is a co-applicant on a patent application related to C9ORF72 - Method for diagnosing a neurodegenerative disease (PCT/GB2012/052140).

D.G.G. has received grants from Michael’s Movers, the Neurosciences Foundation, and Parkinson’s UK, and honoraria from AbbVie, BIAL Pharma, Britannia Pharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, and consultancy fees from Acorda Therapeutics and the Glasgow Memory Clinic.

M.T.M.H. received funding/grant support from Parkinson’s UK, Oxford NIHR BRC, University of Oxford, CPT, Lab10X, NIHR, Michael J. Fox Foundation, H2020 European Union, GE Healthcare and the PSP Association. She also received payment for Advisory Board attendance/consultancy for Biogen, Roche, Sanofi, CuraSen Therapeutics, Evidera, Manus Neurodynamica, Lundbeck.

Y.B.-S. has received grant funding from the MRC, NIHR, Parkinson’s UK, NIH, and ESRC. J.C.C. has served on advisory boards for Biogen, Denali, Idorsia, Prevail Therapeutic, Servier, Theranexus, UCB, and received grants from Sanofi and the Michael J. Fox Foundation outside of this work.

A.E. received funding/grant support by Agence Nationale de la Recherche, France Parkinson, and the Michael J. Fox foundation.

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.

All other authors report no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in whole or in part by Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s [Grant number: ASAP-000478] through the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to all Author Accepted Manuscripts arising from this submission.

This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The UCL Movement Disorders Centre is supported by the Edmond J. Safra Philanthropic Foundation.

Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the AMP-PD Knowledge Platform (https://www.amp-pd.org). AMP-PD is a public-private partnership managed by the FNIH and funded by Celgene, GSK, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Pfizer, and Verily.

Clinical data and biosamples used in preparation of this article were obtained from the Fox Investigation for New Discovery of Biomarkers (BioFIND), the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI), the Parkinson’s Disease Biomarkers Program (PDBP), and the SURE-PD3 Study. BioFIND is sponsored by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF) with support from the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).

Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Fox Investigation for New Discovery of Biomarkers (“BioFIND”) database (http://biofind.loni.usc.edu/). For up-to-date information on the study, visit michaeljfox.org/news/biofind.

PPMI – a public-private partnership – is funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and funding partners, including [list the full names of all of the PPMI funding partners found at www.ppmi-info.org/fundingpartners]. The PPMI Investigators have not participated in reviewing the data analysis or content of the manuscript. For up-to-date information on the study, visit www.ppmi-info.org.

The Parkinson’s Disease Biomarker Program (PDBP) consortium is supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) at the National Institutes of Health. A full list of PDBP investigators can be found at https://pdbp.ninds.nih.gov/policy. The PDBP Investigators have not participated in reviewing the data analysis or content of the manuscript.

The DIGPD cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01564992) is a multicenter longitudinal cohort conducted in four Universities and four General Hospitals in France between 2009 and 2019, sponsored by Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, funded by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC 2008, AOR0810) and a grant from the Agence Nationale de Sécurité et des Médicaments (ANSM-2013). We thank the DIGPD Study group which collected the data made available for this work.

Both TPD and OPDC cohorts are primarily funded and supported by Parkinson’s UK (https://www.parkinsons.org.uk/) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Dementias and Neurodegenerative Diseases Research Network (DeNDRoN). The TPD study is also supported by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The OPDC cohort is also supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, based at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, and the University of Oxford. TPD has multi-centre research ethics approval from the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee: IRAS 70980, MREC 11/AL/0163 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02881099). OPDC has multi-centre research ethics approval from the South Central Oxford A Research Ethics Committee 16/SC/0108. Each subject provided written informed consent for participation.

The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project was supported by the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and by NCI, NHGRI, NHLBI, NIDA, NIMH, and NINDS. The data used for the analyses described in this manuscript were obtained from https://console.cloud.google.com/storage/browser/gtex-resources on 01/26/2022.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Tysnes O-B, Storstein A. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm 2017; 124: 901–905.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Szeto JYY, Walton CC, Rizos A, Martinez-Martin P, Halliday GM, Naismith SL et al. Dementia in long-term Parkinson’s disease patients: a multicentre retrospective study. NPJ Parkinsons Dis 2020; 6: 2.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Dubois B, Burn D, Goetz C, Aarsland D, Brown RG, Broe GA et al. Diagnostic procedures for Parkinson’s disease dementia: Recommendations from the movement disorder society task force. Mov Disord 2007; 22: 2314–2324.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Perez-Lloret S, Barrantes FJ. Deficits in cholinergic neurotransmission and their clinical correlates in Parkinson’s disease. npj Parkinson’s Disease 2016; 2: 16001–16001.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Buter TC, van den Hout A, Matthews FE, Larsen JP, Brayne C, Aarsland D. Dementia and survival in Parkinson disease: A 12-year population study. Neurology 2008; 70: 1017–1022.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    Hobson P, Meara J. Risk and incidence of dementia in a cohort of older subjects with Parkinson’s disease in the United Kingdom. Mov Disord 2004; 19: 1043–1049.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Hughes TA, Ross HF, Musa S, Bhattacherjee S, Nathan RN, Mindham RHS et al. A 10- year study of the incidence of and factors predicting dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 2000; 54: 1596–1603.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Pankratz N, Byder L, Halter C, Rudolph A, Shults CW, Conneally PM et al. Presence of an APOE4 allele results in significantly earlier onset of Parkinson’s disease and a higher risk with dementia. Mov Disord 2006; 21: 45–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Tunold J-A, Geut H, Rozemuller JMA, Henriksen SP, Toft M, van de Berg WDJ et al. APOE and MAPT Are Associated With Dementia in Neuropathologically Confirmed Parkinson’s Disease. Front Neurol 2021; 12. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.631145.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Mata IF, Leverenz JB, Weintraub D, Trojanowski JQ, Hurtig HI, Van Deerlin VM, et al. APOE, MAPT, and SNCA Genes and Cognitive Performance in Parkinson Disease. JAMA Neurol 2014; 71: 1405–1405.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Liu G, Boot B, Locascio JJ, Jansen IE, Winder-Rhodes S, Eberly S, et al. Specifically neuropathic Gaucher’s mutations accelerate cognitive decline in Parkinson’s. Ann Neurol 2016; 80: 674–685.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Davis MY, Johnson CO, Leverenz JB, Weintraub D, Trojanowski JQ, Chen-Plotkin A et al. Association of GBA Mutations and the E326K Polymorphism With Motor and Cognitive Progression in Parkinson Disease. JAMA Neurol 2016; 73: 1217–1217.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Mata IF, Leverenz JB, Weintraub D, Trojanowski JQ, Chen-Plotkin A, Van Deerlin VM et al. GBA Variants are associated with a distinct pattern of cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2016; 31: 95–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Labbé C, Heckman MG, Lorenzo-Betancor O, Soto-Ortolaza AI, Walton RL, Murray ME, et al. MAPT haplotype H1G is associated with increased risk of dementia with Lewy bodies. Alzheimers Dement 2016; 12: 1297–1304.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Setó-Salvia N, Clarimón J, Pagonabarraga J, Pascual-Sedano B, Campolongo A, Combarros O et al. Dementia Risk in Parkinson Disease. Arch Neurol 2011; 68. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    Malek N, Swallow DMA, Grosset KA, Lawton MA, Marrinan SL, Lehn AC et al. Tracking Parkinson’s: Study Design and Baseline Patient Data. J Parkinsons Dis 2015; 5: 947– 959.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Szewczyk-Krolikowski K, Tomlinson P, Nithi K, Wade-Martins R, Talbot K, Ben-Shlomo Y et al. The influence of age and gender on motor and non-motor features of early Parkinson’s disease: Initial findings from the Oxford Parkinson Disease Center (OPDC) discovery cohort. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2014; 20: 99–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Iwaki H, Leonard HL, Makarious MB, Bookman M, Landin B, Vismer D et al. Accelerating Medicines Partnership: Parkinson’s Disease. Genetic Resource. Mov Disord 2021; 36: 1795–1804.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Tan MMX, Lawton MA, Jabbari E, Reynolds RH, Iwaki H, Blauwendraat C et al. Genome-Wide Association Studies of Cognitive and Motor Progression in Parkinson’s Disease. Mov Disord 2021; 36: 424–433.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Watanabe K, Taskesen E, van Bochoven A, Posthuma D. Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA. Nat Commun 2017; 8: 1826–1826.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Haas J, Beer AG, Widschwendter P, Oberdanner J, Salzmann K, Sarg B et al. LRP1b shows restricted expression in human tissues and binds to several extracellular ligands, including fibrinogen and apoE – carrying lipoproteins. Atherosclerosis 2011; 216: 342– 347.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Feleke R, Reynolds RH, Smith AM, Tilley B, Taliun SAG, Hardy J et al. Cross-platform transcriptional profiling identifies common and distinct molecular pathologies in Lewy body diseases. Acta Neuropathol 2021; 142: 449–474.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Cam JA, Zerbinatti CV, Knisely JM, Hecimovic S, Li Y, Bu G. The Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor-related Protein 1B Retains β-Amyloid Precursor Protein at the Cell Surface and Reduces Amyloid-β Peptide Production. J Biol Chem 2004; 279: 29639– 29646.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Faraone SV, Spencer TJ, Madras BK, Zhang-James Y, Biederman J. Functional effects of dopamine transporter gene genotypes on in vivo dopamine transporter functioning: a meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry 2014; 19: 880–889.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Fazeli G, Oli RG, Schupp N, Stopper H. The Role of the Dopamine Transporter in Dopamine-Induced DNA Damage. Brain Pathol 2011; 21: 237–248.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Habak C, Noreau A, Nagano-Saito A, Mejía-Constaín B, Degroot C, Strafella AP et al. Dopamine transporter SLC6A3 genotype affects cortico-striatal activity of set-shifts in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2014; 137: 3025–3035.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Colla E. Linking the Endoplasmic Reticulum to Parkinson’s Disease and Alpha- Synucleinopathy. Front Neurosci 2019; 13. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00560.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    Gerakis Y, Hetz C. Emerging roles of ER stress in the etiology and pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. FEBS J 2018; 285: 995–1011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Võsa U, Claringbould A, Westra H-J, Bonder MJ, Deelen P, Zeng B et al. Large-scale cis- and trans-eQTL analyses identify thousands of genetic loci and polygenic scores that regulate blood gene expression. Nat Genet 2021; 53: 1300–1310.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Wang D, Liu S, Warrell J, Won H, Shi X, Navarro FCP et al. Comprehensive functional genomic resource and integrative model for the human brain. Science 2018; 362. doi:10.1126/science.aat8464.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Ardlie KG, Deluca DS, Segrè AV, Sullivan TJ, Young TR, Gelfand ET et al. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) pilot analysis: Multitissue gene regulation in humans. Science 2015; 348: 648–660.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    Nalls MA, Blauwendraat C, Vallerga CL, Heilbron K, Bandres-Ciga S, Chang D et al. Identification of novel risk loci, causal insights, and heritable risk for Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Lancet Neurol 2019; 18: 1091–1102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Blauwendraat C, Heilbron K, Vallerga CL, Bandres-Ciga S, von Coelln R, Pihlstrøm L, et al. Parkinson’s disease age at onset genome-wide association study: Defining heritability, genetic loci, and α-synuclein mechanisms. Mov Disord 2019; 34: 866–875.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Chartier-Harlin M-C, Kachergus J, Roumier C, Mouroux V, Douay X, Lincoln S et al. α- synuclein locus duplication as a cause of familial Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 2004; 364: 1167–1169.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    Chia R, Sabir MS, Bandres-Ciga S, Saez-Atienzar S, Reynolds RH, Gustavsson E et al. Genome sequencing analysis identifies new loci associated with Lewy body dementia and provides insights into its genetic architecture. Nat Genet 2021; 53: 294–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Guerreiro R, Ross OA, Kun-Rodrigues C, Hernandez DG, Orme T, Eicher JD et al. Investigating the genetic architecture of dementia with Lewy bodies: a two-stage genome-wide association study. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17: 64–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Zheng J, Zang Q, Hu F, Wei H, Ma J, Xu Y. Alpha-synuclein gene polymorphism affects risk of dementia in Han Chinese with Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Lett 2019; 706: 146–150.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Campêlo CLC, Cagni FC, de Siqueira Figueredo D, Oliveira LG Jr, Silva-Neto AB, Macêdo PT et al. Variants in SNCA Gene Are Associated with Parkinson’s Disease Risk and Cognitive Symptoms in a Brazilian Sample. Front Aging Neurosci 2017; 9: 198.
  39. 39.↵
    Luo N, Li Y, Niu M, Zhou L, Yao M, Zhu L et al. Variants in the SNCA Locus Are Associated With the Progression of Parkinson’s Disease. Front Aging Neurosci 2019; 11: 110.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Goris A, Williams-Gray CH, Clark GR, Foltynie T, Lewis SJG, Brown J et al. Tau and α- synuclein in susceptibility to, and dementia in, Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 2007; 62: 145–153.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Liu G, Peng J, Liao Z, Locascio JJ, Corvol J-C, Zhu F et al. Genome-wide survival study identifies a novel synaptic locus and polygenic score for cognitive progression in Parkinson’s disease. Nat Genet 2021; 53: 787–793.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Kunkle BW, Grenier-Boley B, Sims R, Bis JC, Damotte V, Naj AC et al. Genetic meta- analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Aβ, tau, immunity and lipid processing. Nat Genet 2019; 51: 414–430.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Kim S, Swaminathan S, Shen L, Risacher SL, Nho K, Foroud T et al. Genome-wide association study of CSF biomarkers A 1-42, t-tau, and p-tau181p in the ADNI cohort. Neurology 2011; 76: 69–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.
    Lee B, Yao X, Shen L. Genome-Wide association study of quantitative biomarkers identifies a novel locus for alzheimer’s disease at 12p12.1. BMC Genomics 2022; 23: 85–85.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.
    Hong S, Prokopenko D, Dobricic V, Kilpert F, Bos I, Vos SJB et al. Genome-wide association study of Alzheimer’s disease CSF biomarkers in the EMIF-AD Multimodal Biomarker Discovery dataset. Transl Psychiatry 2020; 10: 403–403.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Ramanan VK, Risacher SL, Nho K, Kim S, Swaminathan S, Shen L et al. APOE and BCHE as modulators of cerebral amyloid deposition: a florbetapir PET genome-wide association study. Mol Psychiatry 2014; 19: 351–357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    Rongve A, Witoelar A, Ruiz A, Athanasiu L, Abdelnour C, Clarimon J et al. GBA and APOE ε4 associate with sporadic dementia with Lewy bodies in European genome wide association study. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 7013–7013.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Rauch JN, Luna G, Guzman E, Audouard M, Challis C, Sibih YE et al. LRP1 is a master regulator of tau uptake and spread. Nature 2020; 580: 381–385.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Lane-Donovan C, Philips GT, Herz J. More than Cholesterol Transporters: Lipoprotein Receptors in CNS Function and Neurodegeneration. Neuron 2014; 83: 771–787.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    Haass C, Kaether C, Thinakaran G, Sisodia S. Trafficking and Proteolytic Processing of APP. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2012; 2: a006270–a006270.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    Andersen OM, Willnow TE. Lipoprotein receptors in Alzheimer’s disease. Trends Neurosci 2006; 29: 687–694.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    Cam JA, Zerbinatti CV, Li Y, Bu G. Rapid Endocytosis of the Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor-related Protein Modulates Cell Surface Distribution and Processing of the β- Amyloid Precursor Protein. J Biol Chem 2005; 280: 15464–15470.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    Ranganathan S, Noyes NC, Migliorini M, Winkles JA, Battey FD, Hyman BT et al. LRAD3, A Novel Low-Density Lipoprotein Receptor Family Member That Modulates Amyloid Precursor Protein Trafficking. Journal of Neuroscience 2011; 31: 10836–10846.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    Brodeur J, Thériault C, Lessard-Beaudoin M, Marcil A, Dahan S, Lavoie C. LDLR- related protein 10 (LRP10) regulates amyloid precursor protein (APP) trafficking and processing: evidence for a role in Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Neurodegener 2012; 7: 31– 31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Quadri M, Mandemakers W, Grochowska MM, Masius R, Geut H, Fabrizio E et al. LRP10 genetic variants in familial Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies: a genome-wide linkage and sequencing study. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17: 597–608.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Poduslo SE, Huang R, Spiro A. A genome screen of successful aging without cognitive decline identifies LRP1B by haplotype analysis. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2009; 9999B. doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.30963.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 57.↵
    Kaivola K, Shah Z, Chia R, International LBD Genomics Consortium, Scholz SW. Genetic evaluation of dementia with Lewy bodies implicates distinct disease subgroups. Brain 2021. doi:10.1093/brain/awab402.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    van der Lee SJ, van Steenoven I, van de Beek M, Tesi N, Jansen IE, van Schoor NM et al. Genetics Contributes to Concomitant Pathology and Clinical Presentation in Dementia with Lewy Bodies. J Alzheimers Dis 2021; 83: 269–279.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Kalaitzakis ME, Graeber MB, Gentleman SM, Pearce RKB. Striatal β-Amyloid Deposition in Parkinson Disease With Dementia. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2008; 67: 155–161.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.
    Lashley T, Holton JL, Gray E, Kirkham K, O’Sullivan SS, Hilbig A et al. Cortical α- synuclein load is associated with amyloid-β plaque burden in a subset of Parkinson’s disease patients. Acta Neuropathol 2008; 115: 417–425.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.↵
    Compta Y, Parkkinen L, O’Sullivan SS, Vandrovcova J, Holton JL, Collins C et al. Lewy- and Alzheimer-type pathologies in Parkinson’s disease dementia: which is more important? Brain 2011; 134: 1493–1505.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 62.↵
    Smith C, Malek N, Grosset K, Cullen B, Gentleman S, Grosset DG. Neuropathology of dementia in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review of autopsy studies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2019; : jnnp–2019–321111.
  63. 63.↵
    Schrag A, Siddiqui UF, Anastasiou Z, Weintraub D, Schott JM. Clinical variables and biomarkers in prediction of cognitive impairment in patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson’s disease: a cohort study. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16: 66–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.↵
    Rebeck GW, LaDu MJ, Estus S, Bu G, Weeber EJ. The generation and function of soluble apoE receptors in the CNS. Mol Neurodegener 2006; 1: 15–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    Tsuang D, Leverenz JB, Lopez OL, Hamilton RL, Bennett DA, Schneider JA et al. APOE ɛ4 Increases Risk for Dementia in Pure Synucleinopathies. JAMA Neurol 2013; 70: 223–228.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Zhao N, Attrebi ON, Ren Y, Qiao W, Sonustun B, Martens YA et al. APOE4 exacerbates α-synuclein pathology and related toxicity independent of amyloid. Sci Transl Med 2020; 12. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aay1809.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    Colloby SJ, Williams ED, Burn DJ, Lloyd JJ, McKeith IG, O’Brien JT. Progression of dopaminergic degeneration in dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease with and without dementia assessed using 123I-FP-CIT SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 1176–1185.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. 68.↵
    Moreau C, Meguig S, Corvol J-C, Labreuche J, Vasseur F, Duhamel A et al. Polymorphism of the dopamine transporter type 1 gene modifies the treatment response in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2015; 138: 1271–1283.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Zhang W, Shen J, Wang Y, Cai K, Zhang Q, Cao M. Blood SSR1: A Possible Biomarker for Early Prediction of Parkinson’s Disease. Front Mol Neurosci 2022; 15. doi:10.3389/fnmol.2022.762544.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.↵
    Lees AJ, Hardy J, Revesz T. Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 2009; 373: 2055–2066.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  71. 71.↵
    Das S, Forer L, Schönherr S, Sidore C, Locke AE, Kwong A et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat Genet 2016; 48: 1284–1287.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D et al. PLINK: A Tool Set for Whole-Genome Association and Population-Based Linkage Analyses. Am J Hum Genet 2007; 81: 559–575.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    Willer CJ, Li Y, Abecasis GR. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 2190–2191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.↵
    Boughton AP, Welch RP, Flickinger M, VandeHaar P, Taliun D, Abecasis GR et al. LocusZoom.js: interactive and embeddable visualization of genetic association study results. Bioinformatics 2021; 37: 3017–3018.
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.↵
    Machiela MJ, Chanock SJ. LDlink: a web-based application for exploring population- specific haplotype structure and linking correlated alleles of possible functional variants. Bioinformatics 2015; 31: 3555–3557.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    Hodge RD, Bakken TE, Miller JA, Smith KA, Barkan ER, Graybuck LT et al. Conserved cell types with divergent features in human versus mouse cortex. Nature 2019; 573: 61– 68.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.↵
    Agarwal D, Sandor C, Volpato V, Caffrey TM, Monzón-Sandoval J, Bowden R et al. A single-cell atlas of the human substantia nigra reveals cell-specific pathways associated with neurological disorders. Nat Commun 2020; 11: 4183–4183.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    Bryois J, Skene NG, Hansen TF, Kogelman LJA, Watson HJ, Liu Z et al. Genetic identification of cell types underlying brain complex traits yields insights into the etiology of Parkinson’s disease. Nat Genet 2020; 52: 482–493.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Skene NG, Grant SGN. Identification of Vulnerable Cell Types in Major Brain Disorders Using Single Cell Transcriptomes and Expression Weighted Cell Type Enrichment. Front Neurosci 2016; 10. doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00016.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.↵
    Reynolds RH. RHReynolds/MarkerGenes: v0.99.1 - zenodo release. 2022doi:10.5281/zenodo.6418605.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.↵
    Giambartolomei C, Vukcevic D, Schadt EE, Franke L, Hingorani AD, Wallace C et al. Bayesian test for colocalisation between pairs of genetic association studies using summary statistics. PLoS Genet 2014; 10: e1004383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    Reynolds RH. RHReynolds/colochelpR: v0.99.1. 2021 doi:10.5281/zenodo.5011869.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.↵
    Akbarian S, Liu C, Knowles JA, Vaccarino FM, Farnham PJ, Crawford GE et al. The PsychENCODE project. Nat Neurosci 2015; 18: 1707–1712.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    Li YI, Knowles DA, Humphrey J, Barbeira AN, Dickinson SP, Im HK et al. Annotation- free quantification of RNA splicing using LeafCutter. Nat Genet 2018; 50: 151–158.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    Yang J, Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. GCTA: A Tool for Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis. Am J Hum Genet 2011; 88: 76–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    Pedersen CC, Lange J, Førland MGG, Macleod AD, Alves G, Maple-Grødem J. A systematic review of associations between common SNCA variants and clinical heterogeneity in Parkinson’s disease. npj Parkinson’s Disease 2021; 7: 54–54.
  87. 87.↵
    Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 2019; 22: 153–160.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    Owzar K, Li Z, Cox N, Jung S-H. Power and Sample Size Calculations for SNP Association Studies With Censored Time-to-Event Outcomes. Genet Epidemiol 2012; 36: 538–548.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Posted May 25, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Association between the LRP1B and APOE loci and the development of Parkinson’s disease dementia
Raquel Real, Alejandro Martinez-Carrasco, Regina H. Reynolds, Michael A. Lawton, Manuela M. X. Tan, Maryam Shoai, Jean-Christophe Corvol, Mina Ryten, Catherine Bresner, Leon Hubbard, Alexis Brice, Suzanne Lesage, Johann Faouzi, Alexis Elbaz, Fanny Artaud, Nigel Williams, Michele T. M. Hu, Yoav Ben-Shlomo, Donald G. Grosset, John Hardy, Huw R. Morris
medRxiv 2022.05.23.22275465; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.23.22275465
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area