Genetic Contributions to Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia in Admixed Latin American Populations

A. Participant recruitment

Participants with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD) were recruited from ten urban memory clinics across six Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. Recruitment occurred in two phases due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed the start of ReDLat’s prospective recruitment, originally planned for 2020. Despite the timing differences, the inclusion criteria for both the retrospective and prospective cohorts were identical.

All participants underwent medical and neuropsychological evaluation. The clinical diagnosis was determined by site investigators through consensus conferences at each site, adhering to the current diagnostic criteria for AD and FTD. (16–18) Healthy controls were recruited at the same locations meeting the following criteria: Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (19) of 0, a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (20) score greater than 25, or having been evaluated by a neuropsychologist who confirmed normal cognition in participants with few years of formal education. Family members of participants with AD or FTD, aged 18 years or older, were included if there were two or more individuals with neurodegenerative illnesses in the family, or were related to a study participant with a known dementia-associated genetic mutation and having undergone genetic counseling. All participants (diagnosed patients, healthy controls, and family members) demonstrated minimum fluency in the language of assessment (Spanish or Portuguese), had adequate vision and hearing for cognitive testing as determined by the investigator, and were required to have a study partner (informant) with at least six months of knowledge about their daily activities and cognitive/functional status. All participants (prospective and retrospective) had to be capable of providing informed consent or have a legally authorized representative. Consent was obtained following a detailed explanation of the procedures, associated risks, and potential benefits. This process complied with the ethical guidelines of each participating country and the International Declaration of Helsinki, including securing assent from the participants themselves, ensuring they expressed their willingness to participate. The study and informed consent were approved by the Institutional Review Board of each participating site.

B. Clinical characterization

Recruited participants underwent a family history in which information was collected from patients and their study partners via self-report in the Genetic Pedigree Software-Progeny®. (21) A positive family history was defined as having at least one first- or second-degree relative with dementia or another neurodegenerative disorder. Families with three or more affected individuals in two consecutive generations were then labeled as ‘strong family aggregation’. Medical history and a full neuropsychological examination were conducted as described in Ibañez et. al. (2021). (14) Retrospective participants were assessed based on a re-evaluation of the available clinical data for each individual. The cognitive tests were harmonized as described in Maito et.al.(2023). (22)

C. Genetic sequencing and data processing

1. Sample acquisition and processing: Standardized phlebotomy with EDTA tubes was used for sample collection. DNA was extracted using the techniques detailed in the Supplementary table 1. Samples were shipped quarterly from the various participating sites in Latin America to the United States. HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology (Alabama, U.S.A) performed Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Arrays, whole exome sequencing (WES), and/or whole genome sequencing (WGS) of the samples. Additional whole genome sequencing was performed at Psomagen, Inc. (Maryland, U.S.A)

2. SNP Arrays: Variants were genotyped using the NeuroBooster array from Illumina, designed to to capture variants relevant to neurological conditions. (23) Quality control (QC) of the SNP Array data was conducted using Genotools v1 default settings. (24) Prior to imputation, the QC’ed output files from Genotools were processed with the no_qc_imputation_prep.sh script. This script ran the datasets through the Wrayner script to compare them against all TOPMed freeze 8 variants. Excluded variants were then flipped to rescue additional variants, after which the dataset was processed again through the Wrayner script to compare against PASS TOPMed freeze 8 variants. Data was subsequently imputed using the TOPMed Imputation Panel and Server v1.3.3, following a previously developed pipeline for multi ancestral sample sets as described in Vitale et. al. (2024). (24)

3. WES: DNA was processed using Integrated DNA Technologies xGen Exome Hyb Panel v2, and sequenced on the NovaSeq 6000 platform using paired-end 100-base pair reads to a target depth of 100X.

4. WGS: Samples at Psomagen were prepared using the TruSeq DNA PCR-Free library prep method to avoid PCR amplification bias. Samples at HudsonAlpha underwent a custom PCR-free preparation involving Covaris shearing (fragmenting the DNA), end repair (preparing the DNA fragments for ligation), and adapter ligation, all without PCR amplification. All libraries from both sites were then normalized using KAPA qPCR and sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform to a target depth of 30X. The sequencing was paired-end with a read length of 150 bp (Illumina 150bpPE).

5. Alignment and variant calling: The raw sequence data (fastq files) were aligned to the hg38 reference genome using the Sentieon v202112.05 implementation of the BWA MEM algorithm at HudsonAlpha. Sentieon v202112.05 utilities were used to sort the reads, mark duplicate sequences, and recalibrate the base quality scores. Variant calling, which identifies differences between the sample DNA and the reference genome, was performed using GATK4 tools implemented by Sentieon v202112.05. This step was conducted across all samples in a single batch to maintain consistency. Finally, variant quality score recalibration (VQSR) was applied to filter out false positive variant calls, ensuring high-quality data. This comprehensive approach achieved an average recall rate of 99.22% when compared to the Genome in a Bottle high confidence truth sets, indicating a high level of accuracy in detecting genetic variants.

D. Genomic analyses

1. Genomic data quality control:

   1. Variant Call Format (VCF) files were filtered according to established criteria to ensure high-quality data. For whole genome and exome sequences variants with genotype quality greater than 20 and read depth scores above 10 were retained. The filtered VCF was then annotated with gene names, variant types, and amino acid changes for all exonic variants using GRCh38.99 with SnpEff, dbSNP release 156, CADD 1.6, TOPMed Bravo Freeze 8 allele frequencies, and ClinVar through bcftools. (25–28) Variants with genotyping rates below 95% by individual and 95% by variant were removed. Chromosomal sex was further validated via genetic data by splitting the pseudoautosomal regions of the X chromosome and analyzing the heterozygosity of X-chromosome, as well as the count of variants present on the Y chromosome. A detailed pipeline and scripts are available at https://github.com/TauConsortium/redlat-genetics

   2. Relatedness: Family history was documented through elaboration of detailed pedigrees for each recruited participant. Disclosed relatedness was compared to expected genetic relatedness using KING. (29) Individuals with cryptic relatedness (kinship coefficient <0.125 without a familial relationship documented on the pedigrees) or discrepancies between disclosed and genetic relatedness were removed.

   3. Combining Datasets: To combine the arrays and WGS data, all variant IDs in both datasets were first annotated with “chrom:pos:ref:alt”. The VCFs were then intersected using BCFtools v1.9 isec, producing a list of intersecting variants between the two datasets. Both VCFs were filtered to include only these intersecting variants and then merged using BCFtools v1.9 merge. (30) After merging, the VCF was annotated with dbSNP 156. (31)

   4. Concordance Check: To ensure concordance between the imputed arrays and WGS, concordance was checked for individuals with data from both methods. The imputed array data was filtered for varying allele frequencies (AFs) using BCFtools v1.9. (30) Concordance was assessed for each AF-filtered VCF using SnpSift concordance. The final concordance for each individual was determined by dividing the number of correct variant calls by the total number of intersecting variant calls. The complete script for the concordance check is available at the project’s GitHub repository [see data sharing]. Samples with concordance below 0.95 at sites with AFs less than 0.0001 were excluded.

2. Population Stratification:

   1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted using the smartpca package from EIGENSOFT (version 8.0.0). (32) Initial PCA calculations were based on samples from the 1000 Genomes Project, (33) and the ReDLat samples were subsequently projected onto the top principal components.

   2. Global ancestry was estimated using ADMIXTURE (version 1.3). (34) Initially, we performed an unsupervised ancestry analysis on data from the 1000 Genomes Project, which included individuals from various ‘reference populations’. (33) The ReDLat samples were then projected onto the reference panel-based population structure.

3. Variant pathogenicity analysis:

   Data from WGS and WES was merged for a joint analysis for pathogenic variation. We used the Online Mendelian In Men (OMIM) database to search for genes associated with autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, or X-linked forms of adult-onset dementia. (35)

   We manually curated protein-altering variants in the ten genes most commonly associated with adult-onset neurodegeneration: APP, CHMP2B, FUS, GRN, MAPT, PSEN1, PSEN2, TARDBP, TBK1, and VCP, as well as expansions in C9orf72. (36) Variants located in introns, the 3’ untranslated region (3’ UTR), the 5’ untranslated region (5’ UTR), and synonymous variants within exons were included if their in silico splice-predicting scores (dbscSNV_RF_SCORE and dbscSNV_ADA_SCORE) were both greater than 0.6, since these variants were considered likely to have an impact on splicing, making them relevant for further study. (37) Exonic non-synonymous variants (missense, nonsense, and frameshift) were analyzed following guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) [20] and the Guerreiro algorithm for PSEN1 and PSEN2 genes. [21]

   The variants identified in the remaining genes listed in Supplementary Table 2 were queried in ClinVar [18] and AlzForum [19] and reported if previously classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Variants identified through this process were then tested by hand for familial segregation to confirm their association with the disease within families.

A. Characterization of the population

By the time of manuscript submission, we had sequenced a total of 2,254 participants from both the retrospective and prospective cohorts. Following thorough quality control, genomic data from 2,162 individuals were retained for analyses. The final dataset comprised 658 participants with SNP array data (including 174 who also had WES), 1,495 with WGS, and 9 individuals with only WES. [Figure 1] Among the participants with high quality genomic data, 999 were diagnosed with AD, 381 with FTD, and 755 were classified as healthy at the time of evaluation. Additionally, the sample included eight participants with mild cognitive impairment and 19 with conditions attributed to other neuropsychiatric factors (including Parkinson’s disease, Lewy body dementia, atypical parkinsonism, neurodevelopmental disorders, cerebellar ataxia, brain tumor, cognitive impairment associated with non-brain cancer, vascular dementia, severe depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy). These individuals were part of the recruited families and had a recruited relative with AD or FTD related dementia.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Consort Diagram of the ReDLat Cohort

SNP: Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, WES: Whole exome sequencing, WGS: Whole genome sequencing

As expected, a higher percentage of participants with FTD were under 65 years of age compared to those with AD (22.3% vs. 13.9%). Furthermore, the percentage of female participants was higher in the AD group (66.6%) compared to the FTD group (52.8%). Those in the AD group also showed a higher proportion of individuals who are heterozygous (41.5%) and homozygous (8.6%) for the APOEℇ4 allele. [Table 1] The distribution of APOE alleles of unrelated individuals varies per country as shown in supplementary table 3. Homozygous APOEℇ2 carriers were observed only in Colombia (0.2%) and Brazil (1%). Conversely, the highest numbers of APOEℇ4 alleles were found in Argentina and Colombia (39% in both), although Colombia has 1% more homozygous carriers than Argentina. It is worth noting that these numbers may not be fully representative due to the Colombian sample size being considerably larger. As larger numbers of samples from all regions are collected, allele frequency estimates will be further refined.

B. Genetic Ancestry

To assess genetic ancestry similarity among our samples, we initially generated a merged ReDLat dataset that included 2,153 participants with WGS or SNP array data that passed the concordance analysis [Supplementary file 1]. We then used WGS from the 1000 Genomes Project (1000GP) [16] as reference populations to estimate the global ancestry of the participants, employing Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and ADMIXTURE software to estimate global ancestry. (34) We used the 1000GP cohort to identify variants with allelic frequency >10% and in linkage equilibrium that were present in both the 1000GP and the merged ReDLat dataset, resulting in a total of 226,524 variants used for ancestry analyses.

PCA [Figure 2, and Supplementary Figure 1] reveals that the ReDLat dataset shows substantial overlap with the American populations (AMR) sampled by the 1000GP, which also included Colombian, Mexican, and Peruvian participants. Though a substantial number of participants overlap with European (EUR) cohorts, there were 21 individuals clustering with the East Asian (EAS) population, suggesting recent EAS descent subgroups within ReDLat.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the ReDLat cohort.

A-B-C: ReDLat sub-cohort distribution compared to the 1000GP. D-E-F: 1000GP sub-cohort distribution compared to ReDLat. G-H-I: ReDLat compared to the 1000GP. A-D-G: PC1 vs. PC2. B-E-H: PC1 vs. PC3. C-F-G: PC2 vs. PC3

1000GP: Reference dataset from the 1000 Genomes project; AFR: African, AMR: American admixed, EAS: Eastern Asia, EUR: Europe, SAS: South Asian. ReDLat subcohorts include ARG: Argentina, BRA: Brazil, CHI: Chile, COL: Colombia, MEX: Mexico, PER: Peru

When analyzing the data by country, participants from Peru, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina exhibit minimal variation along Principal Component 1 (PC1), which is associated with African ancestry. In contrast, there is greater variation along Principal Component 2 (PC2), which is associated with Amerindian ancestry. This variation is particularly pronounced among participants from Mexico and Peru, who have individuals with a majority of their ancestry being Amerindian. These findings suggest a predominant two-way ancestry pattern in these populations. There is clear overlap between Argentinian and Brazilian samples with the European (EUR) cohort; however, the Brazilian samples show significant variation along PC1, highlighting the African component of the sample. While most Brazilian samples are distributed primarily between African (AFR) and EUR populations, a small subset clusters with EAS, indicating a distinct ancestral subgroup within Brazil. Colombia displays a clear three-way admixture pattern, as evidenced by its wide distribution along both PC1 and PC2. Additionally, Peruvian and Mexican samples from ReDLat exhibit clear overlap with their 1000GP counterparts, while ReDLat Colombian samples showed greater diversity than those in 1000GP [Figure 2]. This increased diversity is likely due to ReDLat’s broader sampling across multiple regions of Colombia. Overall, the PCA analysis confirms that the ReDLat cohort accurately represents the different historical admixture patterns previously described in the corresponding countries. (1)

To calculate global ancestry Q-values, which are adjusted p-values accounting for multiple testing and controlling the false discovery rate, we projected the ReDLat samples onto the 1000GP dataset ADMIXTURE results at multiple clustering values. [Supplementary Figure 2]. At K=5, where K represents the number of ancestral populations in the clustering analysis, we observed a continental separation of ancestral origins and were able to differentiate the Amerindian component. [Figure 3] Peru is the only country where Amerindian ancestry exceeds European ancestry, followed by Mexico, where these two ancestries show similar distributions. In Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile, European ancestry is the most prevalent among the participants, with a median value of 86.9% (Mean value of 79.7%, Standard deviation 17.5) for Argentina and 84.2% (Mean value of 73.8%, Standard deviation 26.9) for Brazil. African ancestry is present in Colombia and Brazil at lower levels; we observe a continuum of this ancestry, with individuals having over 90% and 75% African descent, down to the mean levels for both countries (around 10%), suggesting ongoing admixture over generations. In contrast, this continuum is not observed in the EAS component of the Brazilian samples, suggesting a recent diaspora without intercontinental admixture. [Supplementary Figure 3]

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Global ancestry of ReDLat cohorts

Reference panel from the 1000 Genomes project; AFR: African, AMR: American admixed, EAS: Eastern Asia, EUR: Europe, SAS: South Asian. (see supplementary figure2)

C. Variant pathogenicity analysis

To identify Mendelian forms of neurodegeneration in our cohort, we analyzed data from 1,678 participants who had high-quality WGS or WES data to detect pathogenic variants. Following standard practices in complex systems analysis, we employed both “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches.

Our bottom-up approach was a "gene-to-family" search, in which we initially assessed genes most commonly associated with adult-onset neurodegeneration for pathogenic variants (see Methods). We identified a total of 17 pathogenic variants, a pathogenic C9orf72 expansion, and 44 variants of uncertain significance (VUS). [Table 2 and Supplementary Table 4]. In families with AD, we discovered a novel variant in the PSEN1 gene, c.519G>T(p.Leu173Phe), as well as other previously described variants in the region, such as c.356C>T (p.Thr119Ile). (5) While variants like c.428T>C (p.Ile143Thr) and c.356C>T (p.Thr119Ile) are identical by descent due to founder effects, another variant, c.415A>G (p.Met139Val), has been identified as identical by state across multiple ancestral origins and presents as either AD or atypical dementia [Clinical Vignette 1] In families with FTD, the gene most commonly associated with hereditary forms of the illness in our cohort was GRN, followed by MAPT [Clinical Vignette 2 and Clinical Vignette 3]. Pathogenic C9orf72 repeat expansions were observed in several families from geographically non-adjacent areas.

After the initial analysis of these primary genes, we expanded our search to include secondary genes associated with adult-onset neurodegeneration. Utilizing the OMIM database, we identified a set of genes where single nucleotide variants or short insertions/deletions could be disease-causing [Supplementary Table 2]. (5,38–42) In our analysis, we found four additional pathogenic variants.[Supplementary table 5] Three of these variants are present in families with autosomal dominant disease and are located in the PRNP and NOTCH3 genes. Most notably, we identified an FTD patient without motor symptoms carrying a pathogenic variant in SOD1 c.388G>A (p.Phe21Leu) which was previously reported in another FTD patient from the same geographical region [Supplementary Table 6]. (5)

In contrast, our top-to-bottom approach consisted of a “family-to-gene” search, where we analyzed the pedigrees of all recruited participants. After excluding individuals recruited as “healthy”, we identified 426 independent families that included a relative with neurodegeneration, who was considered the proband, and classified them based on the presence of affected relatives [Figure 4]. Among our cohort, 70 families exhibited autosomal dominant inheritance of neurodegenerative diseases, as evidenced by the presence of three affected individuals in two consecutive generations. The families were later classified according to the diagnosis of the proband, with 48 families identified as having AD and 22 as FTD. These families were subsequently categorized based on the age at disease onset: ‘late onset’ was assigned to families where all affected members presented dementia at ages older than 65 years; ‘early onset’ applied to those where all affected individuals were 65 years or younger at the time of dementia onset; and ‘mixed onset’ described families that included members with both early and late-onset disease [Supplementary Table 7]. Though many of the carriers of pathogenic variants belonged to the RedLat retrospective cohort, 14 of the recruited families were carriers of pathogenic variants, and the majority had positive family history of neurodegeneration.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Segregation of neurodegeneration in the ReDLat recruited cohort

In a further analysis of families exhibiting autosomal dominant patterns, we assessed the presence of at least one allele of APOE ℇ4. Among the families diagnosed with AD, nine were negative for APOE ℇ4 alleles, while 32 had ar least an APOE ℇ4 carrier. Among these families we determined the APOE ℇ4 allele status for more than one participant in seven of them. Notably, only four families demonstrated a segregation pattern consistent with the presence of the APOE ℇ4 allele in the affected individuals. In contrast, among the families with FTD, six were negative for APOE ℇ4 alleles, and the one family where we could determine the APOE ℇ4 allele status for more than one participant, no segregation pattern was observed. [Figure 4]