| Literature DB >> 34658838 |
Manish D Paranjpe1,2, Stella Belonwu1,3, Jason K Wang2, Tomiko Oskotsky1,4, Aarzu Gupta1, Alice Taubes1,5, Kelly A Zalocusky5,6, Ishan Paranjpe1,7, Benjamin S Glicksberg7, Yadong Huang5,6, Marina Sirota1,4.
Abstract
Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder and the most common cause of dementia in the United States. In spite of evidence of females having a greater lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and greater apolipoprotein E4-related (APOE ε4) AD risk compared to males, molecular signatures underlying these differences remain elusive.Entities:
Keywords: APOE; Alzheimer’s disease; biomarker; inflammation; neuroinflammation; sex; transcriptomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34658838 PMCID: PMC8515049 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.735611
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.702
FIGURE 1Meta-analysis overview. Diagram depicting the study overview including all datasets used and analyses performed. Data sets were obtained via searching GEO or PubMed for the keyword Alzheimer’s Disease. Samples with neurological conditions other Alzheimer’s, including Parkinson’s Disease and Huntington’s Disease, and single cell preparations were excluded from analysis. Datasets were merged using the ComBat package in R. WGCNA was used for network analyses. CIBERSORT was used for cell type deconvolution. The linear SVM was trained to classify AD and control patients using the transcriptomic signature obtained via meta-analysis of blood studies. The performance of a molecular model consisting of gene expression, age, sex and APOE ε4 status was compared to that clinical model with age, sex and APOE ε4 status as features.
Meta-analysis study characteristics.
| AD | CN | ||||||
| Study | Accession | Total participants | AD, no. (%) | Female/Male (% Female) | APOE ε4 Carrier Yes/No (% Yes) | Female/Male (% Female) | APOE ε4 Carrier Yes/No (% Yes) |
|
| |||||||
| Allen |
| 212 | 72 (34) | 29/43 (40) | 22/50 (31) | 54/86 (39) | 19/121 (14) |
| Mayo Clinic RNA-Seq |
| 154 | 80 (52) | 49/31 (61) | 42/38 (53) | 36/38 (49) | 9/65 (12) |
| MSBB |
| 301 | 185 (62) | 131/54 (71) | 63/122 (34) | 57/59 (49) | 16/100 (13) |
| ROSMAP |
| 417 | 218 (52) | 151/67 (70) | 83/135 (38) | 122/77 (61) | 33/166 (17) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||
| ADNI |
| 301 | 43 (14) | 17/26 (40) | 32/11 (74) | 135/125 (52) | 71/189 (27) |
| AddNeuroMed1 |
| 182 | 91 (50) | 65/26 (71) | 52/39 (57) | 55/36 (60) | 30/61 (33) |
| AddNeuroMed2 |
| 160 | 86 (43) | 59/27 (69) | 47/39 (55) | 45/29 (61) | 15/59 (20) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
FIGURE 2Cross-tissue sex specific differential gene expression. (A) Four-way plot with fold change in males vs fold change in females depicting differentially expressed genes in the brain. Differential expression was defined using a fold change > 1.2 and FDR P < 0.05. Covariates of age and sex were included in statistical analyses. (B) In the brain, a total of 631 genes were uniquely dysregulated in females with AD while 166 genes were uniquely dysregulated in males with AD. Common to both males and females in the brain were 343 genes. (C) Four-way plot with fold change in males vs fold change in females depicting differentially expressed genes in the blood. Differential expression was defined using a fold change > 1.2. Covariates of age, sex, and education were included in statistical analyses. (D) A total of 542 genes were uniquely dysregulated in females with AD while 31 genes were uniquely dysregulated in males with AD in blood. Common to both males and females in the brain were 55 genes. (E) Fold change plot depicting genes that are dysregulated in both blood and brain tissues. Genes are colored by sex indicating if the gene is dysregulated in male samples (1 gene; red) or female samples (31 genes; blue).
Enriched pathways in the brain.
| Term | Adjusted P | Genes |
|
| ||
| Malaria | <0.001 | TGFB2;TGFB1;GYPC;HGF;ITGB2;PECAM1;CCL2;TLR4;ICAM1 |
| Hippo signaling pathway | <0.001 | YAP1;CRB2;WWTR1;TGFB2;TGFB1;FZD7;SERPINE1;ITGB2;BMP6;GLI2;TGFBR2;PARD3;CCN2;AJU BA;TEAD2 |
| PI3K-Akt signaling pathway | <0.001 | NGFR;CDKN1A;ANGPT2;CSF1;ITGB5;ITGB4;LAMB2;HGF;IGF2;GNG12;OSMR;PGF;PIK3R5;COL1A2; ITGA10;COL6A2;DDIT4;CDK2;SPP1;ITGA5;TLR4 |
| Proteoglycans in cancer | <0.001 | CDKN1A;TGFB2;TGFB1;HPSE2;ITGB5;FZD7;HGF;IGF2;DCN;MRAS;SMO;ITGA5;EZR;TLR4;CD44 |
| Human T-cell leukemia virus 1 infection | <0.001 | CDKN1A;TGFB2;TGFB1;ITGB2;NFATC2;FOS;ICAM1;NFATC4;TGFBR2;NFKBIA;ZFP36;CDK2;HLA-DRA; MSX1;HLA-DPA1 |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | <0.001 | TGFB2;TGFB1;CSF1;ITGB2;CCL2;HLA-DRA;FOS;TLR4;ICAM1;HLA-DPA1 |
| ECM-receptor interaction | <0.001 | COL1A2;ITGB5;ITGB4;LAMB2;COL6A2;ITGA10;SPP1;ITGA5;CD44 |
| Osteoclast differentiation | <0.001 | NFKBIA;SOCS3;TGFB2;TYROBP;TGFB1;CSF1;NFATC2;TNFRSF11B;TREM2;FOS;TGFBR2 |
| TGF-beta signaling pathway | <0.001 | TGIF1;TGFB2;TGIF2;TGFB1;ID4;ID3;DCN;BMP6;TGFBR2 |
| Staphylococcus aureus infection | <0.001 | C4B;C4A;ITGB2;CFI;C3AR1;HLA-DRA;ICAM1;HLA-DPA1 |
| 36 more.. | ||
|
| ||
| Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction | <0.001 | GABRA1;CHRM4;SSTR1;TACR1;HTR5A;RXFP1;GABRG2;MCHR2;ADCYAP1;MAS1;GLRA3;CCKBR; SST;GALR1;TAC3;TAC1;VIP |
| GABAergic synapse | 0.002 | PRKCG;GABRA1;GNG3;SLC32A1;GAD1;GAD2;GABRG2 |
| cAMP signaling pathway | 0.009 | ADCYAP1;PAK1;BDNF;SST;CAMK4;CALM3;SSTR1;VIP;CNGB1 |
| African trypanosomiasis | 0.02 | PRKCG;HBB;HBA2;HBA1 |
|
| ||
| Focal adhesion | <0.001 | VAV3;PDGFRB;FLT1;ITGB5;LAMB2;HGF;CAV1;FN1;ELK1;PGF;COL1A2;ITGA10;COL6A2;SPP1;IT GB8;ITGA5;TLN1 |
| PI3K-Akt signaling pathway | <0.001 | PDGFRB;NGFR;CDKN1A;FLT1;ANGPT2;CSF1;ITGB5;LAMB2;HGF;FN1;IGF2;PGF;PIK3R5;COL1A2; ITGA10;COL6A2;DDIT4;SPP1;ITGB8;ITGA5;TLR4;EPHA2 |
| Proteoglycans in cancer | <0.001 | CDKN1A;TGFB2;ITGB5;HGF;CAV1;MMP2;IGF2;FN1;IQGAP1;ELK1;DCN;SMO;ITGA5;EZR;TLR4;CD44 |
| ECM-receptor interaction | <0.001 | COL1A2;ITGB5;LAMB2;COL6A2;ITGA10;SPP1;FN1;ITGB8;ITGA5;CD44 |
| MAPK signaling pathway | 0.001 | PDGFRB;NGFR;TGFB2;FLT1;ANGPT2;CSF1;DUSP1;HGF;IGF2;HSPB1;ELK1;PGF;TGFBR2;GNA12; EPHA2;HSPA1A |
| Hippo signaling pathway | 0.01 | YAP1;CRB2;WWTR1;TGFB2;LATS2;CCN2;BMP6;TEAD2;GLI2;TGFBR2 |
| Pathways in cancer | 0.02 | PDGFRB;NOTCH2;CDKN1A;CDKN2B;TGFB2;LAMB2;HGF;MMP2;FN1;IGF2;LRP5;CXCR4;ELK1; PGF;GLI2;TGFBR2;NFKBIA;CASP7;SMO;GNA12 |
| Ras signaling pathway | 0.02 | PDGFRB;NGFR;FLT1;ANGPT2;CSF1;HGF;IGF2;FOXO4;ELK1;PGF;EPHA2;PLA1A |
| TGF-beta signaling pathway | 0.02 | TGFB2;CDKN2B;ID3;DCN;BMP6;RGMA;TGFBR2 |
| Regulation of actin cytoskeleton | 0.02 | VAV3;PDGFRB;ITGB5;ITGA10;GNA12;FN1;CXCR4;ITGB8;IQGAP1;ITGA5;EZR |
| 4 more.. | ||
|
| ||
| Malaria | 0.02 | HBB;HBA2;HBA1 |
| Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction | 0.02 | MAS1;ADCYAP1;SST;TAC3;TAC1;VIP |
| Taurine and hypotaurine metabolism | 0.02 | GAD1;GAD2 |
| African trypanosomiasis | 0.03 | HBB;HBA2;HBA1 |
FIGURE 3Network analysis in the brain. WGCNA was used to construct gene network separately for males and females in the brain. Networks were randomly assigned colors. (A) A description of the disease-associated gene networks (termed modules) produced using WGCNA. Significant disease-associated modules were identified by associating module eigengene to case/control status adjusting for age and APOE ε4 status (P < 0.05). KEGG enrichment analysis of significant was conducted using an adjusted P-value threshold of 0.05. The direction in AD is computed using the case/control coefficient of the model associating module eigengene to case/control status. Modules with significant APOE ε4 :disease interaction effect were identified by adding the interaction term APOE ε4 :disease to the previous model (P < 0.05). (B) Heatmap depicting the degree of module overlap assessed using a hypergeometric test between male and female disease-associated modules. The black module in males had significant overlap (P < 0.05) with the pink and yellow modules, indicated by * in the heatmap. Estimate and −log10(adjpvalue) refers to the case/control coefficient and p-value in the model: module eigengene ∼ age + APOE ε4 + case/control status. (C) Hub genes from female disease-associated modules. Hub genes were defined as genes with gene significance (the correlation between the gene expression and case/control status) greater than 0.2 and module membership (the correlation between gene expression and module eigengene) greater than 0.8. Hub genes were restricted to those that were differentially expressed in AD vs control. Protein-protein interactions between hub gene visualization was performed using the STRING v11 database. Edge color represents the type of interaction evidence for protein-protein interaction (cyan: known interaction from curated databases; turquoise: experimentally determined; green: gene-neighborhood predicted interaction; red: gene-fusions predicted interaction; blue: gene co-occurrence predicted interaction; green-yellow: text mining; black: co-expression; light purple: protein homology. (D) Hub genes among modules with significant APOE ε4: disease interaction effect. Protein-protein interaction between hub genes was visualized using STRING v11 with edge colors representing the same as in panel (C).
Enriched pathways in blood.
| Term | Adjusted P | Genes |
|
| ||
| Tuberculosis | <0.001 | ATP6V0B;CEBPB;ITGAM;IL10RB;IFNGR2;TCIRG1;CTSS;CREB1;IRAK1;LAMP2;ITGAX;RAF1; CAMK2G |
| Necroptosis | 0.004 | PYCARD;STAT5B;MLKL;H2AFJ;IFNGR2;STAT6;TYK2;CFLAR;CAMK2G;HIST1H2AC;HIST2H2AC |
| Fc gamma R-mediated phagocytosis | 0.006 | HCK;PTPRC;ARPC1A;PRKCD;RAC2;ASAP1;ARPC5;RAF1 |
| Pathogenic Escherichia coli infection | 0.01 | ARPC1A;NCK2;ARHGEF2;ARPC5;TLR5;TUBA4A |
| TNF signaling pathway | 0.01 | CEBPB;RPS6KA5;CREB1;MLKL;MAP3K8;FOS;CFLAR;CREB5 |
| Regulation of actin cytoskeleton | 0.02 | FGD3;ITGAM;SPATA13;ARPC1A;RAC2;ITGAX;IQGAP1;ARPC5;RAF1;SSH2;PAK2 |
| Lysosome | 0.02 | GNPTG;CD63;ATP6V0B;LAMP2;IDS;TCIRG1;GNS;CTSS |
| Phagosome | 0.02 | ATP6V0B;ITGAM;LAMP2;CANX;TAP1;TCIRG1;TUBA4A;CTSS;ATP6V1F |
| JAK-STAT signaling pathway | 0.02 | STAT5B;CCND3;CSF3R;IL10RB;IFNGR2;STAT6;TYK2;RAF1;MCL1 |
| Estrogen signaling pathway | 0.03 | CREB1;PRKCD;FOS;KRT10;RAF1;ADCY7;FKBP5;CREB5 |
| 4 more.. | ||
|
| ||
| Ribosome | <0.001 | RPL4;RPL5;RPL30;RPL41;RPL32;RPL12;RPL22;RPL11;RPL35A;MRPL36;MRPL24;RPL6;MR PL33;RPS25;RPL36AL;RPL35;RPL24;RPS20;RPL26;RPS27A;RPL39;RPS24;RPS12 |
| Proteasome | <0.001 | PSMB6;PSMA5;PSMB7;PSMA3;PSMD4;PSMC3;PSMC1;POMP;PSMB1;PSMC2;PSMD1;PSMF1 |
| Spliceosome | <0.001 | ISY1;HSPA8;SF3B5;CCDC12;BUD31;DDX42;PLRG1;PQBP1;SNRPD2;ZMAT2;SYF2;SNRPG;PP IH;SNRPA1;SNRPB2;SLU7;CTNNBL1 |
| Protein export | <0.001 | SRP19;SEC61G;SRPRB;SRP68;SRP14;SEC11A |
| Oxidative phosphorylation | <0.001 | NDUFA9;NDUFA8;NDUFS5;COX17;NDUFB2;NDUFA1;COX6A1;ATP6V1E1;NDUFV2;COX6C;AT P6V1D;UQCRH |
| Huntington disease | <0.001 | NDUFA9;NDUFA8;NDUFB2;NDUFA1;CLTA;COX6C;COX6A1;UQCRH;SOD1;SIN3A;NDUFS5;VD AC3;BAX;NDUFV2 |
| Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) | <0.001 | NDUFA9;NDUFA8;NDUFS5;NDUFB2;NDUFA1;BAX;PIK3R1;COX6A1;NDUFV2;COX6C;ADIPO R2;UQCRH |
| Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum | 0.002 | DNAJA1;ATXN3;HSPA8;HSP90AA1;HSPH1;HSP90AB1;EIF2AK1;SEC61G;ERP29;BAX;UBXN6 |
| Parkinson disease | 0.002 | NDUFA9;NDUFA8;NDUFS5;VDAC3;NDUFB2;NDUFA1;COX6A1;NDUFV2;COX6C;UQCRH |
| Thermogenesis | 0.007 | NDUFA9;COA3;NDUFA8;SMARCC1;NDUFS5;COX17;NDUFB2;NDUFA1;COX6C;COX6A1; NDUFV2;UQCRH |
| 3 more… | ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Proteasome | 0.06 | PSMD4;PSMC3;POMP |
FIGURE 4Network analysis in whole blood. WGCNA was used to construct gene network separately for males and females in whole blood. Networks were randomly assigned colors. (A) A description of the disease-associated gene networks (termed modules) produced using WGCNA. Significant disease-associated modules were identified by associating module eigengene to case/control status adjusting for age and APOE ε4 status and education (P < 0.05). KEGG enrichment analysis of significant was conducted using an adjusted P-value threshold of 0.05. The direction in AD is computed using the case/control coefficient of the model associating module eigengene to case/control status. Modules with significant APOE ε4 :disease interaction effect were identified by adding the interaction term APOE ε4 :disease to the previous model (P < 0.05). (B) Hub genes from female disease-associated modules. Hub genes were defined as genes with gene significance (the correlation between the gene expression and case/control status) greater than 0.2 and module membership (the correlation between gene expression and module eigengene) greater than 0.8. Hub genes were restricted to those that were differentially expressed in AD vs control. Protein-protein interactions between hub gene visualization was performed using the STRING v11 database. Edge color represents the type of interaction evidence for protein-protein interaction (cyan: known interaction from curated databases; turquoise: experimentally determined; green: gene-neighborhood predicted interaction; red: gene-fusions predicted interaction; blue: gene co-occurrence predicted interaction; green-yellow: text mining; black: co-expression; light purple: protein homology.
FIGURE 5Cell type analysis in whole blood. (A) Cell types included in the panel of 22 reference cell types in CIBERSORT. (B) Heatmap depicting cell type expression between cases and controls. APOE ε4 carrier status, sex, and case/control status is annotated for each sample. Only cell types that are significantly different between cases and controls in pooled male and female, male-only or female-only analyses are shown. (C) Bar charts depicting cell type expression for individual cell types that are significantly between cases and controls in pooled male and female, male-only or female-only analyses are shown. Significance was assessed by associated cell type proportion to case/control status, adjusting for age, sex (in the pooled male and female model) and APOE ε4 status. P < 0.05 was deemed significant.
FIGURE 6Linear SVM clinical + molecular model in whole blood. (A–C) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves depicting performance of each linear SVM model on a test set composed of 25% of samples. Features include gene expression data obtained via meta-analysis, age, sex, education, and APOE ε4 status. Three models were fit for male and female pooled samples (A), female samples only (B), and male samples only (C). (D–F) Feature importance plots for features with non-zero importance in the combined male and female model (D), female model (E), and male model (F). A positive feature importance means that the expression of that feature increases the likelihood of being classified as AD (risk factor). A negative feature importance means that expression of the feature expression reduces the likelihood of being classified as AD (protective factor). (G) Comparison of non-zero features between combined male and female model, female model and male model. (H) Enriched pathways among non-zero features. An adjusted P-value cutoff of 0.05 was used for significance to increase power.