INTRODUCTION: The study of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has revealed biological pathways with implications for disease neuropathology and pathophysiology. These pathway-level effects may also be mediated by individual characteristics or covariates such as age or sex. Evaluation of AD biological pathways in the context of interactions with these covariates is critical to the understanding of AD as well as the development of model systems used to study the disease. METHODS: Gene set enrichment methods are powerful tools used to interpret gene-level statistics at the level of biological pathways. We introduce a method for quantifying gene set enrichment using likelihood ratio-derived test statistics (gsLRT), which accounts for sample covariates like age and sex. We then use our method to test for age and sex interactions with protein expression levels in AD and to compare the pathway results between human and mouse species. RESULTS: Our method, based on nested logistic regressions is competitive with the existing standard for gene set testing in the context of linear models and complex experimental design. The gene sets we identify as having a significant association with AD-both with and without additional covariate interactions-are validated by previous studies. Differences between gsLRT results on mouse and human datasets are observed. DISCUSSION: Characterizing biological pathways involved in AD builds on the important work involving single gene drivers. Our gene set enrichment method finds pathways that are significantly related to AD while accounting for covariates that may be relevant to disease development. The method highlights commonalities and differences between human AD and mouse models, which may inform the development of higher fidelity models for the study of AD.
INTRODUCTION: The study of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has revealed biological pathways with implications for disease neuropathology and pathophysiology. These pathway-level effects may also be mediated by individual characteristics or covariates such as age or sex. Evaluation of AD biological pathways in the context of interactions with these covariates is critical to the understanding of AD as well as the development of model systems used to study the disease. METHODS: Gene set enrichment methods are powerful tools used to interpret gene-level statistics at the level of biological pathways. We introduce a method for quantifying gene set enrichment using likelihood ratio-derived test statistics (gsLRT), which accounts for sample covariates like age and sex. We then use our method to test for age and sex interactions with protein expression levels in AD and to compare the pathway results between human and mouse species. RESULTS: Our method, based on nested logistic regressions is competitive with the existing standard for gene set testing in the context of linear models and complex experimental design. The gene sets we identify as having a significant association with AD-both with and without additional covariate interactions-are validated by previous studies. Differences between gsLRT results on mouse and human datasets are observed. DISCUSSION: Characterizing biological pathways involved in AD builds on the important work involving single gene drivers. Our gene set enrichment method finds pathways that are significantly related to AD while accounting for covariates that may be relevant to disease development. The method highlights commonalities and differences between human AD and mouse models, which may inform the development of higher fidelity models for the study of AD.
Authors: Scott C Neu; Judy Pa; Walter Kukull; Duane Beekly; Amanda Kuzma; Prabhakaran Gangadharan; Li-San Wang; Klaus Romero; Stephen P Arneric; Alberto Redolfi; Daniele Orlandi; Giovanni B Frisoni; Rhoda Au; Sherral Devine; Sanford Auerbach; Ana Espinosa; Mercè Boada; Agustín Ruiz; Sterling C Johnson; Rebecca Koscik; Jiun-Jie Wang; Wen-Chuin Hsu; Yao-Liang Chen; Arthur W Toga Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Di Wu; Elgene Lim; François Vaillant; Marie-Liesse Asselin-Labat; Jane E Visvader; Gordon K Smyth Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Alexandra Badea; Wenlin Wu; Jordan Shuff; Michele Wang; Robert J Anderson; Yi Qi; G Allan Johnson; Joan G Wilson; Serge Koudoro; Eleftherios Garyfallidis; Carol A Colton; David B Dunson Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Saranya Canchi; Balaji Raao; Deborah Masliah; Sara Brin Rosenthal; Roman Sasik; Kathleen M Fisch; Philip L De Jager; David A Bennett; Robert A Rissman Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David A Bennett; Kaj Blennow; Maria C Carrillo; Howard H Feldman; Giovanni B Frisoni; Harald Hampel; William J Jagust; Keith A Johnson; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Philip Scheltens; Reisa A Sperling; Bruno Dubois Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Heather E Whitson; Carol Colton; Joseph El Khoury; David Gate; Alison Goate; Michael T Heneka; Rima Kaddurah-Daouk; Robyn S Klein; Mari L Shinohara; Sangram Sisodia; Serena S Spudich; Beth Stevens; Rudolph Tanzi; Jenny P Ting; Gwenn Garden Journal: Brain Behav Immun Health Date: 2022-04-22