PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 42736378

APOE-stratified genome-wide association analyses provide insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimers's disease.

Jesper Qvist Thomassen·Hampton Leonard·Brittany Ulms·Benjamin Grenier-Boley·Sami Heikkinen·Pablo Garcia-González·Atahualapa Castillo-Morales·Masataka Kikuchi·Jungsoo Gim·Han Cao·Fahri Küçükali·Najaf Amin·Dabin Yoon·Itziar de Rojas·Pilar Alvarez Jerez·Victoria Alvarez·Beatrice Arosio·Céline Bellenguez·Sverre Bergh·Kimberley Billingsley·Cornelis Blauwendraat·Merce Boada·Barbara Borroni·Paola Bossù·María J Bullido·Antonio Daniele·Ángel Carracedo·Alexandre de Mendonça·Mark Cookson·Jürgen Deckert·Martin Dichgans·Srdjan Djurovic·Oriol Dols-Icardo·Carole Dufouil·Emrah Düzel·Valentina Escott-Price·Tormod Fladby·Laura Fratiglioni·Amy K Y Fu·Daniela Galimberti·Jose Maria García-Alberca·Vilmantas Giedraitis·Guillermo Garcia-Ribas·Caroline Graff·Timo Grimmer·Edna Grünblatt·Olivier Hanon·Lucrezia Hausner·Stefanie Heilmann-Heimbach·Jakub Hort·Frank Jessen·Kendall Jensen·Caroline Jonson·Yoontae Kim·Nicole Kuznetsov·Ville Leinonen·Anssi Lipponen·Jiao Luo·Mary Makarious·Henna Martiskainen·Carlo Masullo·Patrizia Mecocci·Shima Mehrabian·Pablo Mir·Akinori Miyashita·Susanne Moebus·Kin Y Mok·Laura Molina Porcel·Fermin Moreno·Benedetta Nacmias·Lucilla Parnetti·Pau Pastor·Jordi Pérez-Tur·Oliver Peters·Yolande A L Pijnenburg·Gerard Piñol-Ripoll·Julius Popp·Innocenzo Rainero·Luis M Real·Steffi Riedel-Heller·Eloy Rodriguez-Rodriguez·Arvid Rongve·Giacomina Rossi·Jose Luis Royo·Dan Rujescu·Ingvild Saltvedt·María Eugenia Sáez·Raquel Sánchez-Valle·Florentino Sanchez-Garcia·Nicolai Sandau·Nikolaos Scarmeas·Katja Scheffler·Norbert Scherbaum·Anja Schneider·Geir Selbæk·Davide Seripa·Vincenzo Solfrizzi·Marco Spallazzi·Alessio Squassina·Eystein Stordal

Abstract

Among the more than 90 identified genetic risk loci for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias, the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene ɛ2/ɛ3/ɛ4 polymorphisms remain the longstanding benchmark for genetic disease risk with a consistently large effect across studies1-10. Despite this massive signal, the exact mechanisms by which ɛ4 increases and ɛ2 decreases dementia risk remain poorly understood. Notably, recent trials of anti-amyloid therapies suggest less efficacy and higher risks of severe side effects in ε4 carriers11-13, hampering the treatment of those with the highest unmet need. To improve our understanding of the genetic architecture of AD in the context of its main genetic driver, we performed genome-wide association studies (GWASs) stratified by ε4 and ε2 carrier status. HP1BP3, SLC50A1, PTPRC, NPAS3, DDHD1, CHST9, SMYD2, PRAMEF1 and GFRA1 emerged as new genomic signals for AD risk, appearing only when stratified by APOE carrier status. DDHD1 appeared especially promising, showing protective effects in ε4 carriers, being identified as an expression quantitative trait locus and being involved in rare neuronal diseases. Such APOE-stratified insights may help understand and overcome side effects, inform clinical trial enrollment strategies, and create the scientific basis for targeted, mechanism-driven therapies in neurodegenerative diseases.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jesper Qvist Thomassen, Hampton Leonard, Brittany Ulms, Benjamin Grenier-Boley, Sami Heikkinen, Pablo Garcia-González, Atahualapa Castillo-Morales, Masataka Kikuchi, Jungsoo Gim, Han Cao, Fahri Küçükali, Najaf Amin, Dabin Yoon, Itziar de Rojas, Pilar Alvarez Jerez, Victoria Alvarez, Beatrice Arosio, Céline Bellenguez, Sverre Bergh, Kimberley Billingsley, Cornelis Blauwendraat, Merce Boada, Barbara Borroni, Paola Bossù, María J Bullido, Antonio Daniele, Ángel Carracedo, Alexandre de Mendonça, Mark Cookson, Jürgen Deckert, Martin Dichgans, Srdjan Djurovic, Oriol Dols-Icardo, Carole Dufouil, Emrah Düzel, Valentina Escott-Price, Tormod Fladby, Laura Fratiglioni, Amy K Y Fu, Daniela Galimberti, Jose Maria García-Alberca, Vilmantas Giedraitis, Guillermo Garcia-Ribas, Caroline Graff, Timo Grimmer, Edna Grünblatt, Olivier Hanon, Lucrezia Hausner, Stefanie Heilmann-Heimbach, Jakub Hort, Frank Jessen, Kendall Jensen, Caroline Jonson, Yoontae Kim, Nicole Kuznetsov, Ville Leinonen, Anssi Lipponen, Jiao Luo, Mary Makarious, Henna Martiskainen, Carlo Masullo, Patrizia Mecocci, Shima Mehrabian, Pablo Mir, Akinori Miyashita, Susanne Moebus, Kin Y Mok, Laura Molina Porcel, Fermin Moreno, Benedetta Nacmias, Lucilla Parnetti, Pau Pastor, Jordi Pérez-Tur, Oliver Peters, Yolande A L Pijnenburg, Gerard Piñol-Ripoll, Julius Popp, Innocenzo Rainero, Luis M Real, Steffi Riedel-Heller, Eloy Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Arvid Rongve, Giacomina Rossi, Jose Luis Royo, Dan Rujescu, Ingvild Saltvedt, María Eugenia Sáez, Raquel Sánchez-Valle, Florentino Sanchez-Garcia, Nicolai Sandau, Nikolaos Scarmeas, Katja Scheffler, Norbert Scherbaum, Anja Schneider, Geir Selbæk, Davide Seripa, Vincenzo Solfrizzi, Marco Spallazzi, Alessio Squassina, Eystein Stordal. 2026-09-14. APOE-stratified genome-wide association analyses provide insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimers's disease.. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-026-02713-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article