| Literature DB >> 31828981 |
Megan M Niedzwiecki1,2, Douglas I Walker1,2,3, Jennifer Christina Howell4, Kelly D Watts4, Dean P Jones3, Gary W Miller1,4,5,6, William T Hu4,5,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurological disorder with contributions from genetic and environmental factors. High-resolution metabolomics (HRM) has the potential to identify novel endogenous and environmental factors involved in AD. Previous metabolomics studies have identified circulating metabolites linked to AD, but lack of replication and inconsistent diagnostic algorithms have hindered the generalizability of these findings. Here we applied HRM to identify plasma metabolic and environmental factors associated with AD in two study samples, with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of AD incorporated to achieve high diagnostic accuracy. <br> METHODS: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)-based HRM was used to identify plasma and CSF metabolites associated with AD diagnosis and CSF AD biomarkers in two studies of prevalent AD (Study 1: 43 AD cases, 45 mild cognitive impairment [MCI] cases, 41 controls; Study 2: 50 AD cases, 18 controls). AD-associated metabolites were identified using a metabolome-wide association study (MWAS) framework. <br> RESULTS: An MWAS meta-analysis identified three non-medication AD-associated metabolites in plasma, including elevated levels of glutamine and an unknown halogenated compound and lower levels of piperine, a dietary alkaloid. The non-medication metabolites were correlated with CSF AD biomarkers, and glutamine and the unknown halogenated compound were also detected in CSF. Furthermore, in Study 1, the unknown compound and piperine were altered in MCI patients in the same direction as AD dementia. <br> CONCLUSIONS: In plasma, AD was reproducibly associated with elevated levels of glutamine and a halogen-containing compound and reduced levels of piperine. These findings provide further evidence that exposures and behavior may modify AD risks.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31828981 PMCID: PMC6952314 DOI: 10.1002/acn3.50956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol ISSN: 2328-9503 Impact factor: 4.511
Demographic and clinical data for study samples.
| Study 1 | Control | AD | MCI | Ctrl vs. AD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Demographics | ||||
| Male | 11 (27%) | 16 (37%) | 22 (49%) | 0.43 |
| Age (y) | 67.5 ± 7.3 | 65.9 ± 8.8 | 69.4 ± 6.6 | 0.36 |
| CSF protein biomarkers | ||||
| A | 340 ± 137 | 203 ± 76 | 218 ± 90 | <0.0001 |
| t‐Tau (pg/mL) | 44 ± 24 | 117 ± 70 | 76 ± 67 | <0.0001 |
| p‐Tau181 (pg/mL) | 32 ± 15 | 75 ± 32 | 51 ± 25 | <0.0001 |
| t‐Tau/A | 0.14 ± 0.09 | 0.64 ± 0.39 | 0.39 ± 0.33 | <0.0001 |
| APOE genotypes | ||||
| Subjects with data ( |
|
|
| 0.003 |
| No ε4 alleles | 11 (61%) | 1 (8%) | 10 (48%) | |
| One ε4 allele | 7 (39%) | 8 (62%) | 7 (33%) | |
| Two ε4 alleles | 0 (0%) | 4 (31%) | 4 (19%) | |
N (%) (all such values).
Mean ± SD (all such values).
P‐values for control versus AD comparisons from t‐tests (continuous variables) or chi‐square tests (categorical variables).
Non‐medication plasma metabolite features reproducibly associated with AD from MWAS.
| Feature | Study 1 | Study 2 | Meta‐analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RT | Metabolite | Est (SE) |
| Est (SE) |
| Est (SE) |
| FDR |
| 129.0661 | 89 | Glutamine | 0.22 (0.11) | 0.04 | 0.31 (0.13) | 0.02 | 0.25 (0.08) | 0.002 | 0.07 |
| 246.9550 | 127 | Unknown | 0.41 (0.17) | 0.02 | 0.38 (0.21) | 0.07 | 0.40 (0.14) | 0.003 | 0.08 |
| 349.1515 | 80 | Piperine | −0.59 (0.31) | 0.06 | −0.89 (0.49) | 0.07 | −0.68 (0.27) | 0.01 | 0.18 |
m/z and retention time (RT, in seconds) reflect the mean values in Studies 1 and 2.
Spearman correlationsa of AD‐associated non‐medication plasma features with CSF protein biomarkers of AD and APOE‐ε4 genotype.
| A | t‐Tau (pg/mL) | p‐Tau181 (pg/mL) | APOE (number of ε4 alleles) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glutamine | −0.15* | 0.21† | 0.18† | 0.33† |
|
| −0.16† | 0.13 | 0.19† | 0.09 |
| Piperine | −0.01 | −0.16* | −0.17† | 0.04 |
Correlations reflect results from a fixed effects meta‐analysis of the partial Spearman correlations, adjusted for sex and age, between the listed variables in Studies 1 and 2; *P < 0.10; † P < 0.05.
Figure 1Boxplots of plasma features altered in MCI and AD in Study 1. Figure displays boxplots of log2‐transformed feature intensities by diagnosis for metabolites altered in both MCI and AD in Study 1. Horizontal lines show the lowest detectable ion intensity for the corresponding feature.
Summary of untargeted metabolomics studies of AD in human biofluids.
| Study | Diagnostic groups | Replication cohort | Confirmation of AD pathology | Specimen(s) | Platform | Analytical approach | Metabolite results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orešič et al. 2011 | MCI ( | None | Imaging, CSF biomarkers | Serum | GC‐MS | Penalized GLM, logistic regression | Molecular signature of AD of three metabolites (PC (16:0/16:0); unidentified carboxylic acid; 2,4‐dihydroxybutanoic acid) |
| Ibáñez et al. 2012 | AD ( | None | Imaging, CSF biomarkers | CSF | CE‐MS | PCA, LDA | 14 key metabolites that predicted progression to AD (including choline, dimethylarginine, arginine, valine, proline, serine, histidine, creatine, carnitine, and suberylglycine) |
| Trushina et al. 2013 | MCI ( | None | None | Plasma, CSF | LC–MS | ANOVA, PCA, OPLS‐DA | 342 plasma and 351 CSF features altered across AD, MCI, and control groups (22% putatively identified) |
| Motsinger‐Reif et al. 2013 | AD ( | None | CSF biomarkers | CSF | GC–MS, LC–MS | Stepwise logistic regression | Two discriminant features for AD vs. control |
| Cui et al. 2014 | AD ( | AD ( | None | Serum, urine | LC–MS | OPLS‐DA, ANCOVA, logistic regression | Three metabolites (serum palmitic amide and lysoPC(18:2), urine 5‐L‐glutamylglycine) with consistent prediction across studies |
| Graham et al. 2015 | MCI ( | None | None | Plasma | LC–MS | OPLS‐DA, t‐tests | 263 metabolites altered in MCI vs. control, 162 metabolites altered in MCI‐AD vs. control (putatively identified) |
| Morris et al. 2018 | AD ( | None | None | Serum | LC–MS | PLS‐DA, Mann–Whitney | Poor classification of AD vs. control; ability to distinguish type 2 diabetes patients in controls but not in AD |
| Pena‐Bautista et al. 2019 | MCI‐AD ( | None | Imaging, CSF biomarkers | Plasma | LC–MS | Elastic net | 53 discriminant features; confirmed identity for choline |
| Habartová et al. 2019 | AD ( | None | Imaging | Plasma | LC–MS | LDA | Seven features altered in AD vs. control (putatively identified) |
AD, Alzheimer’s disease; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; SNAP, suspected non‐Alzheimer’s pathophysiology; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; CE‐MS, capillary electrophoresis‐mass spectrometry; LC–MS, liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry; GC‐MS, gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry; PCA, principal component analysis; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; PET, positron emission tomography; ANOVA, analysis of variance; GLM, generalized linear model; OPLS‐DA, orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis; ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; PLS‐DA, partial least squares discriminant analysis.