Benjamin Sweigart1, Stacy L Andersen2, Anastasia Gurinovich3, Stephanie Cosentino4,5, Nicole Schupf4,5, Thomas T Perls2, Paola Sebastiani3. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Geriatrics Section, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Cognitive Neuroscience Division of the Department of Neurology and Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 5. Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The E4 allele of the APOE gene is known to be associated with cognitive impairment. However, a limited number of studies have examined the association between the E2 allele and longitudinal changes of cognitive function. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rates of cognitive change differ in carriers of the APOE E2 allele compared to other genotypes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from two ongoing longitudinal cohort studies, the Long Life Family Study (LLFS) and New England Centenarian Study (NECS). We included participants who had APOE genotyping data, data from longitudinal administrations of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS), and age, sex, and education available. We assessed whether cognitive change as measured by rate of decline in TICS score differed among people with different APOE genotypes. We used a hierarchical mixed effect model with APOE genotypes, their interactions with age, and potential confounders. RESULTS: After adjusting for sex and education, in carriers of the common E3/E3 genotype, TICS score decreased by 0.15 points per year of age. In those with the E2/E2 genotype, TICS score decreased by 0.05 points per year of age, a significantly slower rate of decline (p = 0.017). We observed no protective effect of the E2/E3 genotype on cognitive decline. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a protective effect of the E2/E2 genotype on a measure of global cognitive function.
BACKGROUND: The E4 allele of the APOE gene is known to be associated with cognitive impairment. However, a limited number of studies have examined the association between the E2 allele and longitudinal changes of cognitive function. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rates of cognitive change differ in carriers of the APOE E2 allele compared to other genotypes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from two ongoing longitudinal cohort studies, the Long Life Family Study (LLFS) and New England Centenarian Study (NECS). We included participants who had APOE genotyping data, data from longitudinal administrations of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS), and age, sex, and education available. We assessed whether cognitive change as measured by rate of decline in TICS score differed among people with different APOE genotypes. We used a hierarchical mixed effect model with APOE genotypes, their interactions with age, and potential confounders. RESULTS: After adjusting for sex and education, in carriers of the common E3/E3 genotype, TICS score decreased by 0.15 points per year of age. In those with the E2/E2 genotype, TICS score decreased by 0.05 points per year of age, a significantly slower rate of decline (p = 0.017). We observed no protective effect of the E2/E3 genotype on cognitive decline. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a protective effect of the E2/E2 genotype on a measure of global cognitive function.
Authors: E L Helkala; K Koivisto; T Hanninen; M Vanhanen; K Kervinen; J Kuusisto; L Mykkanen; Y A Kesaniemi; M Laakso; P Riekkinen Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 1996-02-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Sean A P Clouston; Dylan M Smith; Soumyadeep Mukherjee; Yun Zhang; Wei Hou; Bruce G Link; Marcus Richards Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Richard J Caselli; Amylou C Dueck; David Osborne; Marwan N Sabbagh; Donald J Connor; Geoffrey L Ahern; Leslie C Baxter; Steven Z Rapcsak; Jiong Shi; Bryan K Woodruff; Dona E C Locke; Charlene Hoffman Snyder; Gene E Alexander; Rosa Rademakers; Eric M Reiman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L A Farrer; L A Cupples; J L Haines; B Hyman; W A Kukull; R Mayeux; R H Myers; M A Pericak-Vance; N Risch; C M van Duijn Journal: JAMA Date: 1997 Oct 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anne B Newman; Nancy W Glynn; Christopher A Taylor; Paola Sebastiani; Thomas T Perls; Richard Mayeux; Kaare Christensen; Joseph M Zmuda; Sandra Barral; Joseph H Lee; Eleanor M Simonsick; Jeremy D Walston; Anatoli I Yashin; Evan Hadley Journal: Aging (Albany NY) Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.682
Authors: Yeo Jin Kim; Sang Won Seo; Seong Beom Park; Jin Ju Yang; Jin San Lee; Juyoun Lee; Young Kyoung Jang; Sung Tae Kim; Kyung-Han Lee; Jong Min Lee; Jae-Hong Lee; Jae Seung Kim; Duk L Na; Hee Jin Kim Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Eric M Reiman; Joseph F Arboleda-Velasquez; Yakeel T Quiroz; Matthew J Huentelman; Thomas G Beach; Richard J Caselli; Yinghua Chen; Yi Su; Amanda J Myers; John Hardy; Jean Paul Vonsattel; Steven G Younkin; David A Bennett; Philip L De Jager; Eric B Larson; Paul K Crane; C Dirk Keene; M Ilyas Kamboh; Julia K Kofler; Linda Duque; John R Gilbert; Harry E Gwirtsman; Joseph D Buxbaum; Dennis W Dickson; Matthew P Frosch; Bernardino F Ghetti; Kathryn L Lunetta; Li-San Wang; Bradley T Hyman; Walter A Kukull; Tatiana Foroud; Jonathan L Haines; Richard P Mayeux; Margaret A Pericak-Vance; Julie A Schneider; John Q Trojanowski; Lindsay A Farrer; Gerard D Schellenberg; Gary W Beecham; Thomas J Montine; Gyungah R Jun Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 17.694