Systematic proteomics in Autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease reveals decades-early changes of CSF proteins in neuronal death, and immune pathways

ADAD cohort

DIAN is a long-term observational study that employs standardized clinical and cognitive assessments (Clinical Dementia Rating®(CDR)®), neuropsychological testing, imaging modalities (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), PIB-PET, and 18F-FDG),³² and collects biological fluids (blood and CSF). The main goal of this cohort is to detect alterations in individuals who possess known gene mutations that cause AD, including pre-symptomatic and symptomatic mutation carriers. We applied the Somascan® 7K panel to analyze the CSF proteome from 291 MCs, 185 NCs, and the plasma proteome from 325 MCs and 213 NCs from DIAN participants. In total, there were 448 participants that have both CSF and plasma proteomics data.

CSF samples were distributed as follows: 291 MCs [216 (74%) PSEN1, 23 (8%) PSEN2, and 52 (18%) APP]. Of these, 105 (36%) were symptomatic MCs, and 186 (64%) were presymptomatic MCs. The 108 NCs in the study were recruited from family members associated with MCs. The mean age of MCs was 40.0 years; 55% were females, with a mean EYO of −6.6 ±10.4 years (yrs), and 29% of MCs carried at least one APOE ε4 allele. The mean age of NCs was 39.6 years, 59% were females, the mean EYO was −7.8 ± 12.5 yrs, and 33% of NCs presented at least one APOE ε4 allele. Age, sex, EYO and APOE ε4 allele did not show any significant difference between MCs and NCs in CSF (Table 1).

Plasma was available for 325 MCs [240 (74%) PSEN1, 25 (8%) PSEN2, and 60 (18%) APP]. Of those, 129 (39%) were asymptomatic MCs, and 196 (61%) were presymptomatic MCs. The mean age of MCs was 40.4 years; with a mean EYO of −6.3 ±11.06 yrs, 30% carried at least one APOE ε4 allele, and 55% were females. There were 213 NCs with a mean age of 40.7 years; 59% were females, with the mean of −7.9 ± 11.7 yrs, and 33% of NCs carried at least one APOE ε4 allele. There was no significant difference observed in the distribution of sex, age at draw, EYO, and frequency of APOE ε4 carriers as well in the individual with plasma samples and at the specific blood draw used in this study.

The Institutional Review Board of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis approved the study, and research was performed following the approved protocols. All human studies were conducted under the supervisory review and approval of the Washington University in St. Louis institutional review board. Participants or their caregivers provided informed consent by their respective local institutional review boards.

Clinical assessment and EYO in ADAD

Dementia was evaluated using the CDR®, with clinical assessors blinded to participants’ mutation status. The EYO for a participant was computed during each assessment, factoring in their age at the visit and the anticipated period of dementia symptom onset specific to their mutation. ¹⁰ This anticipated onset age for a given mutation was established by averaging reported symptom onset ages among individuals sharing the same mutation. When the mutation-specific expected age of symptom onset was unavailable, the EYO was derived from the age of cognitive decline onset in the participant’s parents or family members, as determined through a thorough semi-structured interview using comprehensive historical data. It is crucial to note that the EYO calculation procedure remained consistent for bo th MCs and NCs. In the present study, we leveraged the DIAN-EYO, which enhances EYO accuracy by integrating an individual’s actual decline age into the EYO determination process rather than solely relying on the mean mutation or parental/familial age at onset. ¹⁰ For simplification, EYO stands for DIAN-EYO.¹⁰ Mutation status was determined using a PCR-based amplification of the relevant exon, followed by Sanger sequencing.²

Sporadic AD cohorts

To characterize ADAD proteomics in comparison to sAD, we combined four different sAD cohorts (Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight-ADRC), Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), Fundació ACE Alzheimer Center Barcelona, and Barcelona-1; see supplementary materials) with available CSF proteomic data, reaching a total of 1,763 samples. We grouped the sAD cohorts based on the ATN classification (where A⁺T⁺ and A⁻T⁻ serve as proxies for sAD and controls).³³ However, the lack of consensus in universal biomarker cutoffs is a major caveat as biomarker levels, and subsequently their cutoffs for dichotomization, can be influenced by the technique of measurement. Thus, we utilized Gaussian mixture models to dichotomize quantitative Aβ42 and pTau measures into positive and negative groups and applied separately for each sAD cohort. ^34,35 Individuals with low CSF Aβ42 and high pTau levels were classified as amyloid/tau positive (A⁺T⁺). Individuals with high Aβ42 and low pTau levels were defined as controls (A⁻T⁻). Detail description of the dichotomization and cut-off determination for each cohort can be found elsewhere ³⁶ and in the supplementary materials.

CSF proteomic data collection, processing, and quality control (QC)

The Somascan® 7K Platform is the aptamer-based technology with modified DNA aptamers (SOMAmers), that measures relative protein levels in a multiplex fashion. ³⁷ This technology has several advantages compared to other classic approaches (ELISA and MS) because it theoretically suffers less from the challenges of dynamic range and missing value. CSF samples were collected from each cohort via lumbar puncture in the morning following an overnight fasting. All samples underwent the same preparation and processing protocols and were stored at −80 °C. We started to measure a total of 7,584 aptamers across 495 DIAN samples and 1,763 sAD and controls using SomaLogic’s Somascan® Platform. The samples were sent together to SomaLogic to minimize batch effects and randomly distributed across plates. Protein abundance levels were measured using the SomaLogic aptamer-based Somascan® platform, which utilizes a multiplexed-based single-stranded DNA aptamer assay for protein quantification. The protein levels were reported as relative intensity units (RFU or Relative Fluorescence Unit). For data normalization, SomaLogic conducted an initial step using hybridization controls to account for intra-plate variability and median signal to address inter-plate variability.³⁸ Additionally, SomaLogic performed an additional normalization step by comparing the data against an external reference to control for biological variation.³⁹ To ensure data quality, individual-level quality control (QC) was carried out to detect and exclude outlier aptamers and samples, as described previously. ^34,39

In summary, after rigorous quality control, 476 samples from the DIAN study and 1,763 samples from sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (sAD) were retained for further analyses. These samples were examined using 7,029 protein aptamers in sAD, among which 23 protein aptamers did not have corresponding protein. In the DIAN cohort, 7,008 aptamers were examined, and two protein aptamers targeted HIV proteins (HIV-2 Rev, C34 gp41 HIV Fragment). These two HIV proteins were not analyzed in sAD. Overall, in DIAN and sAD cohorts, there were 845 and 866 aptamers targeting more than one protein, respectively; and in total, we included 6,163 unique proteins in the analysis.

In addition, levels of CSF Aβ42, total Tau (Tau), and pTau, not present on the SomaLogic panel were also available for the DIAN and sAD samples that were measured using Lumipulse® G Assays (Fujirebio) on the Lumipulse® G platform.^40,41

DIAN plasma proteomics data collection, processing, and quality control

Blood samples were collected at the time of the visit, immediately centrifuged, and the plasma stored at − 80°C. Clinical status (case-control) was determined by the CDR® at the time of draw. We measured 7,584 aptamers in 580 plasma samples from DIAN participants using SomaLogic’s Somascan® Platform. Initial data normalization and QC was performed as described above. Ultimately, 564 samples and 6,985 aptamers targeting 6,022 unique proteins were kept for downstream analysis. In the subsequent description, we will only talk about unique proteins for both CSF and plasma, instead of protein aptamers.

Statistical analysis

Functional Analysis

Study Design

The primary goal of this study was to identify proteins that present early changes in ADAD mutation carriers (MCs) compared to non-carriers (NCs) in both CSF and plasma. We aimed to identify the earliest biomarkers of ADAD, with the potential to provide valuable insights into the pre-symptomatic phases of ADAD and potentially enable early intervention strategies. By leveraging these proteins, our ultimate goal was to contribute to the development of more effective treatment monitoring techniques and propose novel therapeutic strategies for ADAD patients. This research has the capacity to advance our understanding of the disease and improve the prospects for those at risk.

We generated and leveraged large-scale unbiased proteomics from CSF (6,163 proteins) and plasma (6,022 proteins; Fig. 1). Our analytical approach centered on utilizing well-designed informatics models, enabling us to extract proteins exhibiting statistically significant differences in their trajectories between MCs and NCs. This method was chosen for its capacity to closely approximate the pseudo-trajectory of protein alterations in these two distinct groups. Subsequently, we pinpointed when these significant protein changes commenced, providing invaluable insights into the disease progression. We applied co-expression network analysis to cluster the significant proteins for a more comprehensive perspective. Further, we conducted a thorough pathway enrichment analysis with multiple resources to enhance our understanding of the biological implications of these significant proteins within their distinct clusters. For the DIAN plasma samples, we utilized the same analytical pipeline that we applied to the CSF. Our goal was to determine whether plasma samples could provide information consistent with that obtained from CSF samples. Crucially, both the CSF and plasma samples were sourced from the same cohort. We then employed publicly accessible ADAD datasets to validate our findings from CSF proteomics. Additionally, we investigated whether the proteins associated with ADAD were also linked to sporadic late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (sAD). In the final phase, we applied the power of the LASSO model on the most representative significant proteins, which could serve as promising biomarkers for ADAD. This project holds substantial promise for advancing our understanding of ADAD and improving diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Study overview.

In phase 1, proteins measured in the CSF sample were obtained with Somascan®, targeting 6,163 proteins from DIAN. In this stage, the experimental cohort contains 291 MCs and 185 NCs. Differential pseudo - trajectory analyses were performed between MCs and NCs. Trajectory intersections were calculated for significant pseudo-trajectory proteins. Biological functions were identified by protein co-expression network analysis and pathway enrichment. A total of 1,763 sAD CSF samples and 538 DIAN plasma samples wer e analyzed to validate the approach and contextualize the findings. Several publicly available external proteomic datasets were used to validate our findings as well (details in supplementary materials). Last, the LASSO model was used to select significant trajectory proteins and create predictive models for ADAD.

Baseline characteristics of the DIAN participants were summarized in Table 1. MCs include symptomatic and presymptomatic DIAN participants with pathogenic variants in one of three ADAD genes (APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2).⁵¹ Presymptomatic carriers are MCs with CDR® = 0 at CSF draw date. The matched NCs were sourced from the families of the MCs. This control group shares similar genetics background and environmental influences, further enhancing the power of our study to detect reliable proteomic alterations.

Significantly different pseudo-trajectory protein identification in CSF samples

We analyzed 6,163 proteins that passed quality check from 291 MCs and 185 NCs. Following stringent Bonferroni threshold (p < 7.13×10⁻⁶), we identified 125 proteins (132 protein aptamers) that exhibited significantly distinct trajectories between MC vs NCs. In addition, 1,069 proteins showed nominal (P < 0.05) significance (Fig. 2A, Table S1). Additionally, Aβ, p-tau, and tau were included for comparison as they are known and well validated AD biomarkers.^40,41

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Significant pseudo-trajectory proteins and significant proteins associated with ADAD mutation status in CSF.

(A-B) Volcano plots displaying the estimate change (x axis) against −log10 statistical differences (y axis) for all tested proteins. The red dots show the significantly upregulated proteins and the blue dots show the significantly downregulated proteins at Bonferroni threshold (p < 7.13×10⁻⁶).(A) Volcano plot for the pseudo-trajectory analyses comparing trajectories between MC and NC; (B) Volcano plot for the ADAD mutation status only; (C) Twelve significant pseudo-trajectory proteins that changed earlier than Tau, pTau, Aβ42. The ‘loess’ parameter in the plotting was applied to reflect the accuracy of the protein level changes between two groups; (D-E) Disease gene network analysis for the significant pseudo-trajectory proteins. (D) X axis listed the enriched significant pseudo-trajectory proteins. The y-axis represents the disease enriched corresponding to the proteins listed at x - axis. For each disease (y axis), we used different color to lable the disease name. And in each enriched disease, we used same color as the disease name(y axis) by box shape to highlight the distinct enriched protein in each disease. (E). X-axis was the EYO of enriched significant pseudo-trajectory proteins; y-axis was the −log10 estimate of significant trajectory proteins. The color of each curve corresponds to the color of the disease name in (D).

The top 30 hits included proteins known to be associated with AD, such as neurofilament (NEFH, NEFL), calcineurin complex (PPP3CA, PPP3R1), and 14-3-3 proteins (14-3-3 beta, gamma, zeta). Other proteins that have not been previously associated with AD, but were significant in our analyses, included the extracellular matrix binding (SMOC2, SLIT2), negative regulation of protein metabolic process (PEBP1, GPI, PTPA, CRKL, PIN1), cytoskeletal protein binding (PDLIM4, PDCD5, STMN2, TMOD3, MAPRE3, MAP1LC3A), cytosol function proteins (CHN1, DLG2),⁵² and other protein binding (TCEAL5, GARS1).^52,53 However, other reported AD markers, including GFAP (p = 1.25×10⁻⁰⁵) or TREM2 (p = 9.79×10⁻⁰³), did not pass Bonferroni threshold (Fig. S1A).

To determine the reliability of our pseudo-trajectory analysis, we also conducted an analysis based on mutation status as a phenotype, comparing carriers and non-carriers, regardless of clinical status (Fig. 2B, Table S2). We identified 246 proteins to be associated with mutation status after Bonferroni correction (Fig. S1B). We found that all proteins associated with the pseudo-trajectory (n=125) were also significant in this analysis (see supplementary materials). The top upregulated proteins associated with mutation status include CHIT1 (p= 7.97×10⁻¹⁷), NEFL (p=2.66×10⁻¹⁸), YWHAG (p=2.72×10⁻²⁶), ITGA1/ITGB1 (p=1.18×10⁻¹³), and PPP3CA/PPP3R1 (p=1.10×10⁻²⁶). There were two proteins that displayed downregulation in ADAD mutation carriers: NPTX2 (p = 1.61×10⁻⁰⁷) and LRFN2 (p = 1.30×10⁻⁰⁶; Fig. S1C). When comparing the effect size of the proteins associated with both pseudo-trajectory and mutations status, we found strong correlation (R² = 0.88, p = 9.79×10⁻¹²¹; Fig. S1C), indicating that both methods captured the same overall findings, even though mutation status analysis seems to provide more statistical power, as 122 additional proteins passed Bonferroni threshold in this particular analysis (turquoise blue dots in Fig.S1B, S1C).

To confirm the reliability of our findings, we analyzed two other ADAD proteomic studies. ^15,16 One study represents a technical replication as it used a different proteomics approach in the same patient cohort, and the other is a replication in an entirely independent dataset. Johnson et al., employed a Mass Spectrometry approach to measure 59 proteins in 286 mutation carriers and 184 noncarriers from DIAN.¹⁶ This study identified 33 proteins significantly associated with mutation status after correcting for EYO. There were 12 of our 125 pseudo-trajectory-significant proteins included on the Johnson study and all of them also significant and with consistent direction (Table S3, Fig. S1D). These proteins displayed a moderate effect size correlation, with an R² of 0.62 and a p-value of 2.30×10⁻³ (Fig. S1D). Of the remaining 21 proteins identified in Johnson’s study, 14 were present in our proteomic data and five exhibited nominal significance in our analysis (Table S3). These 14 proteins presented an effect size correlation (R²) of 0.51 with a p-value of 4.30×10⁻³ (Fig. S1D). Similar results were found when analyzing all proteins associated with mutation status in our analysis (See in the supplementary materials).

In the other ADAD proteomic study, Van de Ende et al. used Olink-based proteomics to measure 808 proteins in 22 MCs and 20 age- and sex-matched controls. They identified a total of 66 proteins passing significance after FDR correction.¹⁵ Of the 125 pseudo-trajectory significant proteins, 17 were present on the Olink panel (Table S4). Of these 17 proteins, 15 proteins also passed FDR correction in Van de Ende et al.’s study. Among the remaining two, SFRP1 exhibited nominal significance, while SPP1 was not found significant in this analysis despite being significant in the Johnson et al.’s study. These 17 proteins showed a very high effect size correlation (R² = 0.83, p = 4.54×10⁻⁰⁷; Fig. S1E). Regarding the other 51 significant proteins identified in van de Ende et al.’s study, 42 of them were also present in the SomaLogic panel, with 16 of them showing nominal significance in our analysis (Table S4). These 42 proteins showed a low effect size correlation (R² = 0.07, p = 0.10; Fig. S1E). Similar results were found when analyzing all proteins associated with mutation status in our analysis (See in the supplementary materials).

When we integrated the data from both Johnson and van de Ende et al., out of the 125 pseudo-trajectories proteins, 24 unique proteins were present in at least one of these studies, and all of them exhibit nominal associations in one of those studies and consistent direction of association (Table S5), supporting the robustness of our findings. Similar results were found when comparing the 246 associated with mutation status. The results of these comparisons were included in the supplementary materials, supplementary figures (Fig. S1F, S1G) and Tables (Table S6, S7).

Comparison of significantly altered proteins in ADAD and sAD

We then, determined if the proteins associated with ADAD mutation status exhibit an association with sAD. This analysis aimed to provide additional validation for the proteins we initially identified in ADAD and identify potential differences and commonalities with sAD. To investigate this, we generated and analyzed proteomic data from the CSF samples obtained from 1,763 individuals diagnosed with sAD (A⁺T⁺: 848, A⁻T⁻: 915) from multiple cohorts (see in supplementary materials). Among the identified 125 significant pseudo-trajectory significant proteins, all of them were also significant after Bonferroni-correction in sAD with consistent direction of effect.

When looking at the 246 proteins associated with mutation status in DIAN, we found a very high correlation in the effect sizes between sAD and ADAD mutation status analyses (R² = 0.67, p = 4.71×10⁻⁶³, Fig. S1H). There were five proteins that were associated with sAD, also after Bonferroni correction, but in the opposite direction (Table S8, Fig. S1H): DLK2 (ADAD p = 1.99×10⁻⁰⁷, β =-0.025; sAD p = 2.77×10⁻⁰⁵, β = 0.022), LRFN2 (ADAD p = 1.30×10⁻⁰⁶, β = −0.054, sAD p = 3.34×10⁻⁰³, β = 0.023), RELT (ADAD p = 2.27×10⁻⁰⁶, β = −0.020, sAD p = 1.34×10⁻⁰³, β = 0.016), GAGE2A (ADAD p = 4.37×10⁻⁰⁶, β = −0.024, sAD p = 4.2×10⁻⁰³, β = 0.018) and EPHA4 (ADAD p = 5.22×10⁻⁰⁶, β = −0.030, sAD p = 1.08×10⁻⁰⁷, β = 0.0569; Fig. S1H). DLK2, is implicated in neurite outgrowth,⁵⁴ synaptic plasticity,⁵⁵ and neuroprotection,^56,57 and has been associated with anxiety and depression.⁵⁸ EPHA4 has been reported to be involved in the progression of AD due to synaptic dysfunction, and enriched in neurons. GAGE2A has been widely studied in its immune system function in cancer, but its role in neurological disease remains unclear. However, the other two proteins seem to play a role in the blood-brain barrier (BBB). LRFN2 is an endothelial-specific protein that shows a significant decrease in protein levels in neurodegenerative diseases, including AD, Parkinson’s disease, and Lewy body dementia.⁵⁹ Moreover, LRFN2 as one of GBA variants have been linked to dysregulation of glucocerebrosidase, an enzyme that has been reported to be dysregulated in Gaucher disease, which is one of the most common lysosome storage diseases. ⁶⁰ RELT, a member of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, has been shown to contribute to the acquisition and development of barrier properties in the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Both TNFRSF21 and RELT (TNFRSF19) are downstream targets of the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway in BBB endothelial cells. When the TNFRSF21/TNFRSF19 signaling is dysregulated, it can result in the breakdown of the BBB’s endothelial layer. It’s worth noting that the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway is essential for central nervous system (CNS) angiogenesis but not for the development of peripheral vasculature. ^61,62 These data highlight how the differential regulation of distinct proteins and alterations in endothelial cells and the BBB result in different disease outcomes (ADAD and sAD).

To investigate which proteins presented different effect sizes between sAD and ADAD, we identified proteins with effect sizes outside of the 95% CI for the regression for all the 246 proteins associated with ADAD. There were six proteins (CHIT1, SMOC1, SMOC2, NEFL, CAND1, PTPN11) that showed significantly higher effect size in ADAD compared to sAD (Table S8, Fig. S1H). The protein with the highest difference in ADAD was CHIT1 (p = 7.97×10⁻¹⁷, β = 0.29). Chitotriosidase (CHIT1), a putative marker of microglial activation,⁶³ has already been shown to be elevated in the CSF and peripheral blood of AD patients.⁶⁴ Another protein with higher effect size in ADAD is CAND1 (p = 1.39×10⁻¹⁴, β = 0.09), which has been involved in modulating the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway (UPP).⁶⁵ This pathway is pivotal in removing proteins, including the clearance of misfolded proteins, and plays a crucial role in controlling various cellular functions. CAND1 directly interacts with Cullins in their unneddylated form, regulating the assembly of Cullin-RING ligase complexes (CRLs). When Cullins are neddylated, CAND1 dissociates, allowing Cullins to form active CRLs, which are essential for targeting specific substrates for ubiquitination. Additionally, the Gain-of-Function mutation of PTPN11 (p = 4.32×10⁻⁰⁷, β = 0.48) has been reported to associate the developing human brain, memory, and attention.⁶⁶ Two other proteins with higher effect size in ADAD are SMOC1 and NEFL, that have already been proposed as AD biomarkers in previous studies.^15,67,68 The only protein that exhibited a significantly lower effect size in ADAD was NPTX2, that is downregulated in both ADAD and sAD. NPTX2, known as a glutamate receptor, found in established synapses, has been implicated in non-apoptotic cell death of dopaminergic nerve cells (Table S8, Fig. S1H).⁶⁹

In summary, this analysis revealed a significant degree of overlap between ADAD and sAD, while also validating the mutation carrier proteomic analyses in sAD and highlighted several proteins and potential mechanisms that are different between sAD and ADAD.

Earliest CSF proteomic changes

Due to the study design, that leverages mutation status and EYO, we estimated when proteins levels start changing in MCs compared to NCs in relationship of the EYO. Of the 125 identified proteins, 124 began to change before the estimated year of onset, with approximately 93% of these changes occurring within the range of −20 and −3 years (Fig. 2C, Fig. S2). DOC2B was the only protein displaying changes one year after the estimated onset (change +1 yrs in relationship to EYO; Table S9). Established biomarkers changed between 11 to 17 years before onset: pTau (−17 yrs), total Tau (−12 yrs), and Aβ42 (−11 yrs). Among the 125 proteins significant in the pseudo-trajectory analyses, 12 initiated changes earlier than established biomarkers, such as, SMOC1 (−31 years), followed by SMOC2 at −28 years and PPP3R1, GAGE2D at −19 years (Fig. 2A). Several proteins began to change around −18 years (SLIT2, PLCB1, TXNRD1) and −17 years (TMOD3, SPON1, MAPRE3, RABL6, PPP3CA, PPP3R1). Compared to the 33 significant proteins associated with EYO in Johnson et al., we reported 116 additional proteins with significant trajectories changes (Table S1).

Significant proteins in plasma suggest alterations in the presynaptic function

We employed an identical model to perform pseudo-trajectory and mutation status analysis between 325 MCs and 217 NCs from ADAD plasma samples. In the pseudo-trajectory analysis, out of 6,022 proteins, three proteins were significant after FDR correction (FDR p-value < 0.05; Table S9, Fig. S3A). Complexin-2 (CPLX2, p = 0.049) and Syntaxin 1A (STX1A, p = 0.049) were upregulated, while Vesicle Amine Transport 1 (VAT1, p = 0.049) was downregulated in MCs. In examining the time to symptom onset, CPLX2’s pseudo-trajectory began changing approximately seven years before symptom onset, whereas alterations in STX1A’s started around four years before symptom onset (Fig. S3B).

In the mutation carriers vs. non-carriers analyses, nine proteins were associated with mutation status after FDR (Fig. S3C, Table S10), including CPLX2 and STX1A. Additional proteins identified in this analysis include MAD1L1, SMOC1, PPP4R3A, CPLX1, and CAST that were upregulated, while two proteins (SSBP1, VOPP1) were downregulated. SMOC1 was the only protein identified in both plasma and cerebrospinal fluid specimens (Fig. S3D).

Overall, we identified a limited number of significant proteins associated with ADAD in plasma compared to CSF (Fig. S3E, S3F). However, they revealed novel associations previously unreported in ADAD, highlighting differences from sAD. Pathway enrichment for the nine proteins of mutation carriers vs. non-carriers analyses point to alterations in the presynaptic function (see in the supplementary materials, Fig. S4A, Table S11).

Dysregulated proteins are enriched in several known neurodegenerative diseases

We analyzed if the proteins identified in our analyses were reported to be implicated in other diseases by performing gene-disease network enrichment analysis. Of the 125 proteins identified on pseudo-trajectory analyses, 73 have been reported to be implicated on 55 different diseases (Table S12). As expected, “Familial Alzheimer Disease (FAD)” was one of the top hits, with ten of the proteins being associated (MAP1LC3B, VSNL1, TPT1, PEBP1, NRGN, NEFL, HPRT1, ENO2, DLG4, ACHE; p = 6.28×10⁻⁰⁴, log2 Fold Change (LogFC) =2.77, Fig. S5A).

The top ten enriched diseases predominantly were neurodegenerative and neurological disorders (Table S12), such as “Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease” (p = 1.73×10⁻⁰⁵, logFC =3.70), “Frontotemporal Dementia” (FTD, p = 2.26×10⁻⁰⁴, logFC=2.74), and “senile plaques” (p = 5.20×10⁻⁰⁴, logFC=2.83), involving a total of 40 proteins. Among these proteins, CHIT1, STMN2, NRGN, NEFL, GPI, ENO2, ACHE, YWHAZ, PIN1, GAP43, and PPIA served as critical connectors in the network of the 15 neurodegenerative diseases (Fig. S5B). These key connectors play roles in various cellular functions such as postsynaptic signaling (NRGN, NEFL, GAP43, PIN1), neuron projection (STMN2, ENO2, GPI), and cell junction (PPIA, YWHAZ, ACHE),⁵² suggesting they may be common contributors across these diseases. We then investigated the overlapping proteins across the top ten diseases and observed that NEFL, ACHE, and GAP43 were the top three proteins recurrently enriched in these conditions (Fig. 2D). These proteins are known to influence inflammatory responses, apoptosis, and oxidative stress.^70–73 Moreover, GAP43 has been reported to be associated with rapid hippocampal atrophy, AD-signature hypometabolism, and AD-signature hypometabolism-related cognitive decline.⁷⁴ Still, its link to ADAD was identified for the first time in our analysis. The unique proteins associated with each disease were also investigated (See the supplementary materials).^75–78

Finally, we determined if the proteins enriched in specific diseases showed a distinct pattern in relation to the ADAD EYO (Fig. 2E, Table S13). Mild cognitive disorder (MCD; p = 5.01×10⁻⁰³, logFC=2.05) and neuropathy (p = 3.70×10⁻⁰³, logFC=2.14) were characterized with significantly decreased NPTX2 (EYO - 10.09 yrs, β= −4.15×10⁻⁰³, p = 1.34×10⁻⁰⁶) protein level, and an increased NEFL (EYO −11.57 yrs, β=9.11×10⁻⁰³, p=3.44×10⁻¹⁹) and ACHE (EYO −3.98 yrs, β=3.96×10⁻⁰³, p=2.45×10⁻⁰⁷) protein expression. On the other hand, proteins enriched in vascular dementia (DV, p = 5.01×10⁻⁰³, logFC=2.74) and mild cognitive disorder (MCD, p = 5.01×10⁻⁰³, logFC=2.05) showed the earlier EYO (< −15 yrs). These early changes were driven by TXNRD1 (EYO −17.82 yrs, β = 2.93×10⁻⁰³, p = 4.05×10⁻⁰⁸) and VSNL1 (EYO −15.72 yrs, β = 3.10×10⁻⁰³, p = 3.18×10⁻⁰⁸), followed by GAP43 (EYO −14.99 yrs, β = 4.45×10⁻⁰³, p=1.35×10⁻⁰⁸; Fig. 2E). However, other disease groups such as FAD (p = 6.28×10⁻⁰⁴, logFC =2.77) and FTD (p = 2.26×10⁻⁰⁴, logFC=2.74) showed consistent effect sizes in all ranges of EYO and includes proteins such as NRGN (EYO −15.18 yrs, β=5.31×10⁻⁰³, p = 3.24×10⁻⁰⁸), SMURF1 (EYO −14.73 yrs, β=9.91×10⁻⁰⁴, p = 2.14×10⁻⁰⁸) and CHIT1 (EYO - 13.53, β=1.75×10⁻⁰², p = 7.30×10⁻¹⁰).

Co-expression network analysis identified modules that capture the chronological progression in ADAD

Our analyses suggest that there are many pathways dysregulated in ADAD (Table S14, Fig. S5C, S5D, the overview of pathway enrichment for 125 proteins can be found in the supplementary materials), and their disruption may happen at different times during the disease curse. In order to disentangle this complexity, we performed co-expression network analyses and then pathway analyses in each module.

Co-expression network analysis identified four modules for the 125 significant pseudo-trajectory proteins: MEgrey (n=6 proteins), MEchocolate (M1, n=58), MEhotpink (M2, n=24), and MEdeepskyblue (M3, n=47; Fig. S6A-S6C, Table S15, Fig. 3A). The MEgrey module comprised proteins not clustered into the other three modules, and therefore was not included for further analyses. We found that the nodes presented significantly different mean EYO, with M1 being enriched in proteins with the earliest changes (mean were EYO: −11.44 ± 5.92yrs), followed by M2 (−11.08 ± 3.52yrs), and M3 (−8.00 ±4.39 yrs; Table S15, Fig. S6D). The difference between the mean EYO for M1 and M2 was not statistically significant, however, significant differences were observed when comparing the mean EYO of M1 and M3 (t-test: P =0.001) as well as M2 and M3 (t-test: P=0.004).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Co-expression network analysis of significant pseudo-trajectory proteins and pathway enrichment for each module.

(A) Module-trait associations. Each row corresponds to a module eigengene, column to a trait. Each cell contains the corresponding correlation and P-value. The table is color-coded by correlation according to the color legend; (B) Cell type enrichment analysis for MEchocolate2 (M1), Mehotpink3 (M2) and Medeepskyblue4 (M3) clusters identified from WGCNA. The color bar showed on y-axis is consistent with the module color in (A). Each cell type was assigned color as showed on the legend; (C) EYO comparison for functional identified proteins from Reactome pathway analysis. (D-I) Reactome pathway analysis for each module. Treemap (D,F,H) was used to present the significantly enriched pathways with summarized categories (C #, such as C1); chord diagram (E,G,I) were showing the enriched proteins in categorized pathways. The colored pattern labelled at proteins represent the different cell types and the colors were consistent with bar colors in cell type enrichment (B).

The M1 module, which showed the earliest proteomic changes, was mainly enriched in neuronal-specific proteins (p= 1.07 ×10⁻⁰⁹, logFC = 1.54) (Fig. 3B, Table S16). Protein-protein interaction revealed enrichment in calcineurin complex (p =1.80×10⁻⁰², FC= 2.08), autophagosome membrane, p = 3.30×10⁻⁰³, FC=1.44), depletion in postsynaptic density (p = 4.80×10⁻⁰³, FC=0.89), and glutamatergic synapse (p = 5.20×10⁻⁰³, FC=0.88) pathways (Table S17, Fig. S7A). Of the 58 proteins present in M1, 21 proteins displayed significant enrichment in 27 different pathways. This subset of 21 proteins showed a mean EYO = −12.99±3.87 yrs) (Fig 3C, Table S18). These 27 pathways were summarized into 10 super-pathways (the super-pathways are denoted as C1-C10, Table S19). The top pathway categories include NMDA receptor synapse signaling (C1: p =1.23×10⁻⁰², logFC=2.60), calcineurin/NFAT pathway (C2: p=1.53×10⁻⁰², logFC= 5.6), cellular stress (C3: p=1.71×10⁻⁰², logFC=4.47), Macroautophagy & Mitophagy (C5: p=1.53×10⁻⁰², logFC=5.63) and mitochondrial damage (C6: p=4.81×10⁻⁰³, logFC=5.77; Table S18, S19, Fig. 3D, 3E). In these pathways, nine out of 21 proteins were present in the tier 1 or tier 2 of druggable genome database, such as proteins in the NMDA receptor synapse signaling (super-pathway C1; ACHE, PRKCG, GLUL), Glutathione Metabolism (C4: p=4.96×10⁻⁰², logFC= 3.05; GSR, TXNRD1, HPRT1), C6 (PPP3R1, YWHAG) and C10 (SFRP1; Table S18). The mitochondrial damage pathway (C6) was driven by the 14-3-3 gamma (p=8.42×10⁻⁰⁸, EYO −14.79 yrs) and 14-3-3 eta (p=6.21×10⁻⁰⁶, EYO −10.65 yrs), which were some of the most significant associated proteins also with lowest EYO. The identified microtubule associated proteins (MAP1LC3A, MAP1LC3B) enriched in Macroautophagy & Mitophagy (C5, Fig. 3D) and the neuronal proteins (Fig.3E, Table S18) suggest that early neuron pathology changes may involve microtubule dysfunctions. Several proteins in this module are known to be part of the AD pathogenesis and not just mere biomarkers such as ACHE, HOMER1, ⁷⁹ and calcineurin (PPP3R1/PPP3CA)⁸⁰. Other proteins such as NRGN are known and validated AD biomarkers and also part of this module.⁸¹ In summary, this module seems to capture very early neuronal dysfunction due to the presence of ADAD mutations.

Similar to M1, proteins in M2 enriched in neuronal and endothelial cells (Fig.3B, Table S18), but also with proteins that change trajectories after those from M1, suggesting the capture of later processes. Of the 24 proteins in M2, 13 were enriched in biological pathways (Table S18-S19), and showed a mean EYO of −10.28 ± 3.87 years (Fig. 3C). Pathway analyses revealed many processes related with apoptosis (C2: p=8.36×10⁻⁰², logFC= 7.65, Fig. 3F, Table S19), neuronal death (C4: p=2.96×10⁻⁰², logFC=6.66) and very early immune response (C12: p=2.96×10⁻⁰², logFC=6.24). Protein-protein interaction analysis revealed that 14-3-3 proteins (beta, epsilon, eta, gamma, zeta) interact with CAMK2B and neurofilament proteins (NEFH, NEFL) within the postsynaptic intermediate filament cytoskeleton (Fig. S7B). Unlike the other two modules, M2 is significantly marked by its involvement in inflammation signaling transduction pathways, and early immune responses. The eight identified proteins (the four 14-3-3 proteins, CAMK2B, NEFL, and PEA15) participated in and a part a complex biology pathway interaction (Fig. 3G). The networks include MAPK family signaling cascades and signal transduction pathways involving G protein coupled receptors (GPCR), Hippo, Notch, neurotrophic tropomyosin-receptor kinase (NTRKs), and Rho GTPases (C4: p=5.41×10⁻⁰⁶, logFC=4.99), as well as cell injury/death pathways, such as apoptosis (C2: p=8.36×10⁻⁰², logFC=7.65), and Rap1 signaling (C12: p=2.96×10⁻⁰², logFC=6.24).

The M3 module, which is closer to symptom onset, was enriched in microglia and astrocyte-specific proteins, along with pathways linked to the innate immune system (C2: p=4.35×10⁻⁰³, logFC=2.62) and inflammation/infection (C9: p=4.00×10⁻⁰², logFC=2.14). Of the 47 proteins in M3, 20 were part of specific biological pathways, and showed an EYO of −6.65 ± 3.41 years (Fig. 3C). Proteins enriched in microglia, such as CAB39/CAB39L, CRK/CRKL, EIF4B, and SPP1, were found to interact within signaling pathways of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), MET,⁸² NTRKs,⁸³ and Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF),⁸⁴ which are known to be involved in neurodegenerative disorders (Fig. 3H). Additionally, ubiquitin proteins like UBE2N, UBE2V1, and UBE2V2, enriched in C2 (innate immune system, p=4.35×10⁻⁰³, logFC=2.62) and C10 (Autophagy, p=4.71×10⁻⁰², logFC=4.08), were found to interact with the integrin alpha1-beta1 complex (ITGA1, ITGB1), involving intermediates like PPIA and CRK. This complex further interacts with the MPP7-DLG1-LIN7 complex (LIN7A, LIN7B) through DLG4 (Fig. 3H, 3I, Fig. S7C). Pathways related to cell-cell communication (C3: p=4.35×10⁻⁰³, logFC=7.50), developmental biology (C5: p=9.71×10⁻⁰³, logFC=6.34), and extracellular matrix organization (C7: p=2.22×10⁻⁰², logFC=3.68) appeared to reflect an effort to regain functionality by rebuilding and establishing new connections to maintain communication. PARVA, part of the cell-cell communication pathway, is involved in reorganizing the actin cytoskeleton and cell polarity, was identified for the first time in the context of ADAD. ^85,86 In summary, by performing network and subsequent pathway analyses, we were able to provide a better overview of the pathways that are disrupted in ADAD at different stages of the disease.

Predictive models of ADAD

We determined if the proteins identified in this study could predict mutation status (MCs vs NCs; independently of the clinical status). We used machine-learning approaches to identify the minimum number of proteins that maximizes the prediction power. We randomly split the CSF DIAN cohort into training (70%) and testing (30%) five times and used it for an iterative feature selection process. The LASSO model reduced the initial set of 125 proteins to nine key predictors that also showed a nominal or suggestive (p<0.1) association with ADAD in the multi-variate model (Table S20). The identified proteomic signature included some of the previously identified CSF AD-associated proteins, such as SMOC1, ^13,16 calcineurin (PPP3CA/PPP3R1) or NPTX2, among others. ⁸⁷ This model was validated in the testing set (30% of the DIAN CSF samples; n=143, MCs=94, NCs=49), showing strong prediction power for classifying ADAD mutation carriers, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95 in the training set and 0.89 in the testing sets (Fig. 4A, Table S21). The AUC of this proteomic signature was significantly better than those for pTau181 (AUC: 0.80, p = 9.72×10⁻⁰³), Aβ42 (AUC:0.72, p = 1.24×10⁻⁰²) and pTau/Aβ42 (AUC: 0.80, p = 6.87×10⁻⁰⁶) (Table S21). Negative predictive values (NPV) were > 0.93 and positive predictive values (PPV) were > 0.70 in both training and testing and performing better than the classical AD biomarkers.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Prediciton models for ADAD.

(A) The ROC curve for the testing dataset of nine proteins. (B) predictive model performance of nine proteins for presymptomatic carriers vs affected carriers. Aβ42, pTau, pTau/ Aβ42 prediction performance used as comparison (A,B). (C) Levels of the nine proteins in NCs, pre-symptomatic carriers and symptomatic carriers. Grey dots with extended lines in each violin plot represent the median ±SD. (D) Pearson correlations for nine proteins in NCs.

Taking this analysis further, we categorized MCs into subgroups based on their clinical status at CSF draw date. Within the MCs there were 186 individuals without clinical symptoms (Pre-symptomatic) and 105 symptomatic individuals. We tested if this model could also distinguish the pre-symptomatic from the symptomatic individuals. We used the same proteomic signature (nine proteins) with the same weights and cut-offs values (Table S20, S21). The nine proteins predictive model showed an AUC =0.79 (Fig. 4B), the NPV (0.4) and the sensitivity (0.21; Table S21) were significantly lower than pTau181/Aβ42 (NPV 0.90 and sensitivity 0.83), suggesting that the nine proteins (Fig. 4C,4D) signature might be capturing very early disease changes.