Abstract
Lewy body (LB) pathology commonly occurs in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology. However, it remains unclear which genetic risk factors underlie AD pathology, LB pathology, or AD-LB co-pathology. Notably, whether APOE-ε4 affects risk of LB pathology independently from AD pathology is controversial. We adapted criteria from the literature to classify 4,985 subjects from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) and the Rush University Medical Center as AD-LB co-pathology (AD+LB+), sole AD pathology (AD+LB−), sole LB pathology (AD−LB+), or no pathology (AD−LB−). We performed a meta-analysis of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) per subpopulation (NACC/Rush) for each disease phenotype compared to the control group (AD−LB−), and compared the AD+LB+ to AD+LB− groups. APOE-ε4 was significantly associated with risk of AD+LB− and AD+LB+ compared to AD−LB−. However, APOE-ε4 was not associated with risk of AD−LB+ compared to AD−LB− or risk of AD+LB+ compared to AD+LB−. Associations at the BIN1 locus exhibited qualitatively similar results. These results suggest that APOE-ε4 is a risk factor for AD pathology, but not for LB pathology when decoupled from AD pathology. The same holds for BIN1 risk variants. These findings, in the largest AD-LB neuropathology GWAS to date, distinguish the genetic risk factors for sole and dual AD-LB pathology phenotypes. Our GWAS meta-analysis summary statistics, derived from phenotypes based on postmortem pathologic evaluation, may provide more accurate disease-specific polygenic risk scores compared to GWAS based on clinical diagnoses, which are likely confounded by undetected dual pathology and clinical misdiagnoses of dementia type.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging grants 1R01-AG060747 (MDG) and K99AG075238 (MEB), the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions grant 890650 (YLG), and the Alzheimer's Association grant AARF-20-683984 (MEB).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center and the Rush University Medical Center.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Three important changes were made during the revision process: 1) additional Rush individuals were included in the analysis and an inverse weighted variance meta-analysis design was used to meta-analyze Rush and NACC data; 2) we now report in a comprehensive supplementary table associations of all known AD and PD GWAS loci (respectively, in Bellenguez et al. 2022, and Chang et al. 2017 and Nalls et al. 2019) with the pathology contrasts analyzed in the current study; and 3) we removed our secondary analysis including aged cognitively healthy controls (without pathology assessment), which was initially used to increase statistical power but confuses the main message of our study which is to provide GWAS results of AD and LB pathology contrasts solely including pathologically confirmed individuals.
Availability of data and materials
The summary statistics from our genome-wide association study meta-analyses are available online (URL to NIAGADS and EBI GWAS catalogue to be updated at publication).
