| Literature DB >> 34813500 |
Xue Wang1, Mariet Allen2, Özkan İş2, Joseph S Reddy1, Frederick Q Tutor-New2, Monica Castanedes Casey2, Minerva M Carrasquillo2, Stephanie R Oatman2, Yuhao Min2, Yan W Asmann1, Cory Funk3, Thuy Nguyen2, Charlotte Cg Ho2, Kimberly G Malphrus2, Nicholas T Seyfried4, Allan I Levey5, Steven G Younkin2, Melissa E Murray2, Dennis W Dickson2, Nathan D Price3, Todd E Golde6, Nilüfer Ertekin-Taner2,7.
Abstract
Vast numbers of differentially expressed genes and perturbed networks have been identified in Alzheimer's disease (AD), however, neither disease nor brain region specificity of these transcriptome alterations has been explored. Using RNA-Seq data from 231 temporal cortex and 224 cerebellum samples from patients with AD and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a tauopathy, we identified a striking correlation in the directionality and magnitude of gene expression changes between these 2 neurodegenerative proteinopathies. Further, the transcriptomic changes in AD and PSP brains ware highly conserved between the temporal and cerebellar cortices, indicating that highly similar transcriptional changes occur in pathologically affected and grossly less affected, albeit functionally connected, areas of the brain. Shared up- or downregulated genes in AD and PSP are enriched in biological pathways. Many of these genes also have concordant protein changes and evidence of epigenetic control. These conserved transcriptomic alterations of 2 distinct proteinopathies in brain regions with and without significant gross neuropathology have broad implications. AD and other neurodegenerative diseases are likely characterized by common disease or compensatory pathways with widespread perturbations in the whole brain. These findings can be leveraged to develop multifaceted therapies and biomarkers that address these common, complex, and ubiquitous molecular alterations in neurodegenerative diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Alzheimer disease; Bioinformatics; Neuroscience
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34813500 PMCID: PMC8759790 DOI: 10.1172/JCI149904
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Invest ISSN: 0021-9738 Impact factor: 19.456
Figure 1Gene expression changes.
(A–D) Comparison between β coefficients (β) of AD versus control and those of PSP versus control DEG analyses. Each circle represents a gene. Simple model: β was derived from linear regression, with expression as the dependent variable, diagnosis as the independent variable of primary interest, and RIN, age at death, sex, source of samples, and flowcell as covariates. Comprehensive model: β was derived from linear regression as in the simple model, with expression of 5 cell type markers as additional covariates. Red circles: DEGs with q < 0.05 on both side comparisons, except for in D, where P < 0.05 was used in CER PSP versus control analyses. (E–H) Volcano plots highlighting genes from A–D, respectively. The analysis included 231 TCx and 224 CER samples.
Figure 2Protein and qPCR validation of differentially expressed genes.
(A) Venn diagram of proteins and genes that were differentially expressed at an FDR of 0.05 between AD and control samples. Overrepresentation P values were from a hypergeometric test. (B and C) Scatter plot of the overlapping upregulated or downregulated proteins and genes identified in A. (B) AD vs. control DEG β coefficients are plotted against AD vs. control protein β coefficients. (C) PSP vs. control DEG β coefficients are plotted against AD vs. control protein β coefficients. (D) qPCR results of CXCR4, SFRP2 and ETFB. n = 10 samples in each diagnosis group. *P < 0.05, by 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test; #P < 0.05, by 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Bonferroni correction.
Figure 3Gene expression changes are conserved between brain regions within disease analyses.
(A–D) Comparison between β coefficients of TCx AD versus control (ADvC) and those of CER ADvC, and between TCX PSPvC and CER PSPvC DEG analyses. Red circles indicate DEGs with q < 0.05 on both side comparisons, except for in D, where P < 0.05 was used for PSPvC. Simple model: β was derived from linear regression with expression as the dependent variable, diagnosis as the independent variable of primary interest, and RIN, age at death, sex, source of samples, and flowcell as covariates. Comprehensive model: β was derived from linear regression as in the simple model, with the expression of 5 cell type markers as additional covariates. (E–H) Volcano plots highlighting genes from A–D, respectively. The analysis included 231 TCx and 224 CER samples.
Figure 4GO enrichment of DEGs.
Left panel: GO biological process (BP) terms of enrichment (q < 0.05) are listed; when no such BP or molecular function term existed, cellular compartment (CC) terms of enrichment (q < 0.05) are listed. Middle panel: –log10 enrichment q value (purple bars) and proportion of DEGs in GO term over GO term genes (red bars). Right panel: top 25 DEGs that were mostly observed in the selected GO terms. DEGs were identified at q < 0.1 in both AD versus control and PSP versus control comparisons. Up, upregulated; down, downregulated; MSigDB, Molecular Signatures Database.