SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • genetics;
  • genomics;
  • aging;
  • cognition;
  • genome wide association study;
  • neuroimaging

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Supporting Information

Objective

Identify genetic factors associated with cognitive maintenance in late life and assess their association with gray matter (GM) volume in brain networks affected in aging.

Methods

We conducted a genome-wide association study of ∼2.4 M markers to identify modifiers of cognitive trajectories in Caucasian participants (N = 7,328) from two population-based cohorts of non-demented elderly. Standardized measures of global cognitive function (z-scores) over 10 and 6 years were calculated among participants and mixed model regression was used to determine subject-specific cognitive slopes. “Cognitive maintenance” was defined as a change in slope of ≥ 0 and was compared with all cognitive decliners (slope < 0). In an independent cohort of cognitively normal older Caucasians adults (N = 122), top association findings were then used to create genetic scores to assess whether carrying more cognitive maintenance alleles was associated with greater GM volume in specific brain networks using voxel-based morphometry.

Results

The most significant association was on chromosome 11 (rs7109806, P = 7.8 × 10−8) near RIC3. RIC3 modulates activity of α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which have been implicated in synaptic plasticity and beta-amyloid binding. In the neuroimaging cohort, carrying more cognitive maintenance alleles was associated with greater volume in the right executive control network (RECN; PFWE = 0.01).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that there may be genetic loci that promote healthy cognitive aging and that they may do so by conferring robustness to GM in the RECN. Future work is required to validate top candidate genes such as RIC3 for involvement in cognitive maintenance. Hum Brain Mapp 35:4556–4565, 2014. © 2014 The Authors. Human Brain Mapping Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Supporting Information

Although significant research has gone into understanding the risk factors and pathological processes of dementias, little is known about factors contributing to cognitive maintenance throughout aging. It has been suggested that maintenance of cognitive ability over time involves adaptive changes that compensate for deficits such as reduced synaptic plasticity [Blau et al., 2011], which naturally occur with aging [Mauceri et al., 2011; Raz and Rodrigue, 2006]. Factors that globally impact cognition may provide an alternate therapeutic approach for treating dementia, for which genetic heterogeneity and environmental risk factors may be further complicating risk factors [Lee and Silva, 2009].

The emerging field of imaging genomics provides an innovative way to identify brain phenotypes associated with genetic variation [Thompson et al., 2010]. Direct assessment of the effect of genetic variation on the brain allows for logical interpretation of results as reflected in established brain–behavior relationships. We performed the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify genetic modifiers of cognitive trajectory in healthy elderly men and women. Then, to directly assess the clinical relevance of candidate variants, we created genetic scores using the top 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to test whether carrying more protective alleles was associated with greater gray matter (GM) volume in an independent group of cognitively normal older adults. We chose a priori to assess three regions of interest (ROIs) representing the functional networks subserving cognitive domains most affected in cognitive aging [Kaup et al., 2011]: the default mode network (DMN; memory retrieval), and the right and left executive control networks (RECN and LECN, respectively; executive function and working memory) [Montembeault et al., 2012; Tomasi and Volkow, 2012].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Supporting Information

Participants

Elderly GWAS participants were from two independent cohorts, the all-female Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) [Cummings et al., 1995] and the all-male Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) [Blank et al., 2005; Orwoll et al., 2005] Study. SOF is a longitudinal epidemiologic study of 10,366 community-dwelling women age 65 years or older, recruited from four study centers located in: Baltimore, MD; Minneapolis, MN; Portland, OR; and the Monongahela Valley near Pittsburgh, PA. Exclusion criteria included a bilateral hip replacement or if women were unable to walk without assistance. The baseline SOF exams were conducted from 1986–1988, when 9,704 European American women were recruited [Cummings et al., 1995; Vogt et al., 2003]. Baseline examination for MrOS occurred from 2000 to 2002, during which 5,994 community-dwelling men 65 years or older were enrolled at six clinical centers in the United States: Birmingham, AL; Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto, CA; the Monongahela Valley near Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; and San Diego, CA [Blank et al., 2005; Orwoll et al., 2005]. To participate, men needed to be able to walk without assistance and must not have had a bilateral hip replacement. Individuals that were related to each other in SOF and MrOS were identified based on whole genome SNP data and only a single individual from the related pair was included in the analysis (the subject with non-missing phenotype data or, if both members of the related pair had non-missing phenotypes, the sample with the lowest SNP missing rate was retained).

Neuroimaging replication participants (N = 122 Caucasian individuals) were part of on-going healthy aging studies at the Memory and Aging Center (MAC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Cognitively normal older adults were recruited through a variety of methods, primarily through newspaper advertisements and word-of-mouth and were required to have a knowledgeable informant. Cognitively normal older adults had MRI scans acquired within 1 year of clinical evaluation, were self-described Caucasian, and had genotypes available for analysis. Normal cognition was based on the absence of cognitive complaints from the participant and their informant, a normal neurological examination and clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes score = 0 [Morris, 1993].

Standard Protocol Approvals, Registrations, and Patient Consents

All women from SOF provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site approved the study. All men from MrOS provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site approved the study. All MAC participants provided written informed consent, and the UCSF institutional review board approved all aspects of this study.

Cognitive Assessment

In SOF, the shortened Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) [Folstein et al., 1975] with a maximum of 26 points was used to assess global cognitive ability and was administered at baseline, years 4, 6, and 10. In MrOS, the Modified MMSE (3MS) [Teng and Chui, 1987] was administered at baseline, years 4 and 6. A standard neuropsychological battery was performed in MAC participants as previously described [Rankin et al., 2005].

Genotype Acquisition and Quality Control

Genotyping for SOF, MrOS, and MAC participants was performed on the Illumina Omni1-Quad array genotyping platform as per manufacturer's instructions. Genotyping of SOF and MrOS samples was performed at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT and MAC samples were genotyped at the University of California Los Angeles. Imputation was performed in SOF and MrOS participants only for all individuals of European American genetic background (as determined by principal components analysis), using CEU HapMap Phase 2 data as reference. Of 3,020,488 HapMap Phase 2 imputed SNPs, there were a total of 2,457,365 SNPs available for meta-analysis (2,368,637 in SOF and 2,455,897 in MrOS) after excluding those with MAF < 0.01, Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) P < 0.001, call rate < 95% and imputation accuracy < 0.3. SNPs genotyped in the MAC cohort were similarly required to have MAF > 0.01, HWE P > 0.001, and call rate > 95% to be included in the genetic score.

Image Acquisition and Preprocessing

Structural images were acquired in MAC samples using previously described sequences [Sturm et al., 2013] on 3 T (N = 103) and 1.5 T (N = 19) scanners. T1-weighted structural MR images were segmented in SPM8 running under Matlab then preprocessed with DARTEL [Ashburner, 2007] using previously described methods [Ashburner and Friston, 2000; Wilson et al., 2009]. DARTEL-processed GM images were then smoothed with an 8-mm kernel. Masks for each functional network ROI were from a previously published study (Supporting Information Fig. S1) [Habas et al., 2009].

Genetic Score

Genetic scores for imaging analysis in MAC samples were calculated using SNPs from the top 10 findings from the combined SOF-MrOS GWAS that had genotypes available in the MAC samples. We arbitrarily chose to survey the top 10 SNPs because they represented the strongest genomic candidate regions for cognitive maintenance. Only the most significantly associated SNP out of sets in strong linkage disequilibrium (r2 > 0.8) were used for analysis so each independently associated region was represented once in the score. Scores were weighted by the beta value from the original GWAS (SOF or MrOS) with the strongest association P-value for the effect allele (MrOS for all three SNPs included in the final score). Genetic scoring was performed in PLINK [Purcell et al., 2007].

Statistical Analysis

Standardized measures of global cognitive function (z-scores) were calculated for MMSE (SOF) and 3MS (MrOS) repeated measures. Participant-specific slopes and intercepts for SOF and MrOS participants were calculated using mixed effect regression models (PROC MIXED in SAS, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Mixed effect regression enables estimation of population-level fixed effects (overall rate of change in cognitive function in the entire sample) and individual-level random effects (individual deviation from the overall group pattern). Our models allow each participant to have a unique intercept and trajectory (change in cognitive function). Fixed effects included site, age and education. “Cognitive maintenance” was defined as a change in global cognitive function over time (slope) of ≥0.

GWAS of SOF and MrOS were performed in each cohort separately using logistic regression in R (v2.13.0) that corrected for population substructure with the first four principal components. Results were then combined via fixed effect meta-analysis with inverse variance weights and genomic control in METAL [Willer et al., 2010] and are presented as the final analysis. Heterogeneity between sexes was tested using GWAMA [Magi et al., 2010; Magi and Morris, 2010].

For VBM analysis, a voxel-wise general linear model (GLM) was conducted within each of the a priori defined ROIs (Supporting Information Fig. S1). The GLM modeled genetic score as a predictor of GM volume and included as nuisance variables age, total intracranial volume (TIV), sex, scan type (1.5 T or 3 T), education (years), handedness (N = 107 right, N = 15 left/ambidextrous) and number of APOE ε4 alleles (0 [N = 91], 1 [N = 26], or 2 [N = 5]). To adjust for multiple testing, 1,000 permutation analyses combining cluster peak intensity and extent were used [Hayasaka and Nichols, 2004]. Permutation analysis is a resampling approach that allows derivation of a study-specific error distribution from which the one-tailed T-threshold representing a family-wise error (FWE) correction of PFWE < 0.05 can be established [Kimberg et al., 2007]. To quantify neuroimaging findings, mean GM proportion (a proxy of volume) was extracted for each cluster, summed across the ROI, and adjusted for the same nuisance variables included in the VBM linear model. Analysis was run using vlsm2.5 [Bates et al., 2003].

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Supporting Information

A total of 3,508 women and 3,820 men had genetic data, ≥ 2 cognitive test scores available, and were of European ancestry and unrelated for inclusion in the GWAS analysis. Of the 3,508 SOF participants, 781 (22.3%) women were cognitive maintainers. Maintainers were around the same age as decliners (mean ± SD 71.3 ± 4.9 years versus 71.5 ± 5.4 years in decliners, P = 0.25), but tended to have lower education (12.0 ± 2.3 versus 12.8 ± 2.9 in decliners, P < 0.0001) and higher baseline MMSE scores (25.1 ± 1.2 versus 24.6 ± 1.7 in decliners, P < 0.0001). In MrOS, 222 (5.8%) of 3,820 men were cognitive maintainers and they tended to be older (75.5 ± 5.5 years versus 73.9 ± 6.0 years, P = 0.002), have lower education (61.7% versus 77.5% with greater than 12 years education, P < 0.0001) and higher baseline 3MS scores (95.1 ± 3.8 versus 93.5 ± 5.5, P = 0.0002).

Top ten findings from the SOF and MrOS combined GWAS identified six different genes/regions associated with cognitive maintenance (Table 1). The most significant association was an intergenic SNP on chromosome 11, rs7109806 (P = 7.8 × 10−8), which nearly reached genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8). Four of the top 10 SNPs were located within the coding region of MTNR1B, a high-affinity melanocortin receptor expressed primarily in brain and retina. Q–Q plots for the GWAS are shown in Supporting Information Figure S2.

Table 1. Top meta-analysis findings for cognitive maintenance from SOF and MrOS
SNPChrBPNearest geneA1A2MAFImpHWENBeta [SE]aP value
  1. a

    Effect sizes are provided for the MrOS GWAS and were used to calculate the genetic scores. Chr—chromosome; BP—base position; A1—reference allele; A2—alternate allele; MAF—minor allele frequency for A2; imp—imputed SNP (Yes/No); HWE—Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium P-value for genotyped SNP; N—total number of individuals available for meta-analysis of SOF + MrOS GWAS; Beta [SE]—beta ± standard error from MrOS GWAS.

  2. b

    Indicates SNP was used to calculate the genetic score for VBM analysis.

rs7109806b118199205RIC3TC0.09N0.477,328−0.75 [0.14]7.80 E −08
rs6578942118199746RIC3TC0.09N0.567,328−0.72 [0.15]7.96 E −08
rs24601411574319900PMLCG0.01Y 3,820−2.19 [0.43]4.93 E −07
rs7814474881222009TPD52CG0.04Y 7,328−0.97 [0.22]1.81 E −06
rs7918950b1070678711DDX50AG0.22Y 7,328−0.54 [0.13]2.17 E −06
rs94287071236282325GPR137BAC0.01Y 3,820−1.71 [0.37]3.13 E −06
rs26055781192782276MTNR1BTC0.50Y 7,328−0.44 [0.10]3.54 E −06
rs11020267b1192698003MTNR1BAG0.39N0.057,328−0.36 [0.10]4.11 E −06
rs110202701192700892MTNR1BCG0.39Y 7,328−0.37 [0.10]4.12 E −06
rs108310251192696418MTNR1BTC0.39N0.077,328−0.36 [0.10]4.61 E −06

To evaluate the clinical relevance of our top 10 cognitive maintenance GWAS findings, we created genetic scores representing “dose” of cognitive maintenance alleles and assessed their association with GM volume in an independent group of 122 cognitively normal older adults (MAC cohort: 68.9 ± 7.0 years old, 58.2% female, 17.3 ± 2.1 years of education). We were specifically interested in assessing whether carrying more cognitive maintenance alleles was associated with greater volume in functional networks underlying cognitive domains most vulnerable to aging. We arbitrarily chose to survey the top 10 SNPs for their clinical relevance. Three independent SNPs representing three of the six genes in the top 10 findings had been genotyped in the MAC cohort and were used to create the genetic score (SNPs included in the scoring are marked byb in Table 1). Higher genetic score was significantly associated with greater GM volume in three regions of the RECN (PFWE = 0.01–0.03, Fig. 1, Table 2). A plot of the sum of the volume of these three RECN regions as a function of genetic score is shown in Supporting Information Figure S3. No regions in the DMN or regions in the LECN not overlapping with the RECN demonstrated any significant findings (Praw > 0.001).

image

Figure 1. Higher cognitive maintenance genetic scores are associated with greater GM volume in RECN. VBM T-map overlaid on slices of template used for image processing in MRIcron, thresholded at Praw < 0.001. Images are in neurological orientation, with MNI coordinates provided below. 3D renders are visualized on a normal template brain in Connectome Workbench.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 2. VBM findings
RegionVolume (mm3)Max TXYZPFWE
  1. Regions are annotated using the Anatomical Automatic Labeling atlas. Max T—maximum T-score for the cluster; X, Y, Z—Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates; PFWE—family-wise error adjusted P-value.

Right precuneus9423.7712−55220.01
Right angular gyrus8544.8030−51340.01
Right middle frontal gyrus3813.87308540.03

Using a simplified scoring scheme, we plotted the sum of the volumes of the three regions within the RECN as a function of the number of cognitive maintenance alleles to determine the average increase in GM volume with each “dose” of putative protective allele (Fig. 2). There were N = 24 with no alleles, N = 35 with one allele, N = 38 with two alleles, N = 21 with three alleles and N = 4 with four alleles. No individuals had more than four cognitive maintenance-associated alleles. After normalizing to volume in individuals with no maintenance alleles, we observed a dose-dependent effect with an average of 6% greater volume for each additional cognitive maintenance allele. Although the majority of individuals carried two protective alleles, individuals with three or four showed approximately 20%–25% greater volume, when compared to those with no alleles.

image

Figure 2. Proportional increase in volume by number of cognitive maintenance alleles. Volume in RECN is shown by number of cognitive maintenance alleles, normalized to value for no alleles. Data is mean ± SE adjusted for age, sex, education, TIV, scan type, handedness, and APOE ε4 allele count.

Download figure to PowerPoint

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Supporting Information

Our GWAS of cognitive maintenance in over 7,000 elderly, community-dwelling men and women yielded an association with variant rs7109806 with a P-value close to genome-wide significance. In an independent cohort, we found that higher cognitive maintenance genetic scores derived from this and two other top 10 SNPs were associated with greater volume in the RECN, a functional network associated with working memory, attention and task control. By plotting volume of the RECN by number of cognitive maintenance allele, we observed a dose-dependent increase such that individuals with three alleles had an average of 20% greater volume compared to those with no alleles. This suggests that the effect of carrying alleles associated with cognitive maintenance may be quite significant.

Our top SNP is located between RIC3 and LMO1. It is possible that this intergenic polymorphism affects a non-coding gene element such as a transcription factor binding site or enhancer, or that this variant alters epigenetic modification of the region. Alternatively, it may tag other, functional variants in a neighboring gene. RIC3 is a tempting gene candidate; RIC3 modulates activity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), which have been implicated in synaptic plasticity. RIC3 enhances surface expression and functional properties of nAChRs, including the α7 subtype [Treinin, 2008] which has high affinity for amyloid beta (Aβ) 1–42 [Wang et al., 2000]. Aβ1–42 is a neurotoxic, self-associating peptide that contributes to formation of amyloid plaques in Alzheimer's disease (AD) [Lambert et al., 1998]. Four other genes in the top findings were previously implicated in other GWAS: PML in myopia [Meng et al., 2012], Paget's disease [Albagha et al., 2011], and height [Lango Allen et al., 2010]; TPD52 in monoamine metabolite levels in cerebrospinal fluid [Luykx et al., 2013]; GPR137B in working memory in response to olanzapine treatment in schizophrenia [McClay et al., 2011]; MTNR1B for multiple metabolic- and glucose-related phenotypes (e.g., fasting glucose [Prokopenko et al., 2009]; metabolic traits [Sabatti et al., 2009]). In addition to RIC3, MTNR1B is a particularly intriguing candidate given the role metabolic syndrome may play in risk for cognitive decline [Arvanitakis et al., 2004; Baker et al., 2011; Panza et al., 2010; Yaffe, 2007a, b]. Further mapping studies will be required to assess these candidates for causative non-coding or gene variation in cognitive maintenance.

Genetic risk factors for AD such as APOE ε4 may also modify cognitive trajectories in healthy aging [Caselli et al., 2007, 2012; Sweet et al., 2012]. There were 123 SNPs associated with AD and its related phenotypes in the NHGRI Catalog of Published GWAS and representing the APOE/TOMM40/APOC1 linkage block (19q13-q13.2 chromosomal region [Jun et al., 2012; Seripa et al., 2012]) also included in our analysis of cognitive maintenance. Of these, 12 had P < 0.05 in our GWAS. The lowest P-value was at rs4420638 (P = 3.13 × 10−5) that tags the APOE/TOMM40/APOC1 region and was identified in a GWAS of AD risk in European ancestry individuals [Kamboh et al., 2012b]. Additional genes represented included PVRL2 [Ramanan et al., 2013], HRK, RNFT2 [Kamboh et al., 2012a], DISC1 [Beecham et al., 2009], POLN [Logue et al., 2011], and ZNF320 [Hollingworth et al., 2012]. However, there were 86 other SNPs in our analysis that demonstrated stronger associations with cognitive maintenance than the top AD SNP representing APOE/TOMM40/APOC1. This suggests that genetic variation associated with AD likely plays a lesser role in cognitive maintenance.

Our study benefited from a large cohort of well-characterized older adults who have been followed longitudinally, allowing for a sophisticated measure of cognitive maintenance over time. In addition, our novel research approach allowed us to directly assess the biological validity of our candidate SNPs in the context of a clinically oriented research study of healthy aging. We acknowledge that the use of a binary cutoff for cognitive maintenance may lead to misclassification of some subjects based on their true underlying change. However, results ignoring misclassification errors in binary outcomes lead to attenuation of effect estimates and likely loss of power to detect true association findings [Neuhaus, 1999]. Use of frameworks incorporating imaging and genetic analysis into one model may provide better-powered analysis in future studies [Batmanghelich et al., 2013]. Other limitations of this study included having different proportions of cognitive maintainers in the SOF and MrOS cohorts and somewhat insensitive cognitive battery. Indeed, the proportion of cognitive maintainers was higher in the female SOF cohort. The top five associated SNPs analyzed in both cohorts demonstrated significant heterogeneity between sexes (P < 0.05); while effects in each cohort were always in the same direction, they were on average ∼2.5× higher in MrOS versus SOF. This observation may represent a biological phenomenon, though it may also be a survival effect because the males were on average older than the females.

In this study, we used a genome-wide survey to identify candidate genes that may play a role in cognitive maintenance by promoting GM robustness in areas of the brain important for executive function. Taking an imaging genomics approach of assessing genetic scores derived from top GWAS findings for their association with GM volume may represent a clinically relevant measure of how genetic variation affects brain structure and, ultimately, function. We feel the strength of our GWAS findings and their ability to predict greater volume in brain regions important for cognitive domains vulnerable in aging [Hinman and Abraham, 2007] provide compelling evidence for a role in cognitive maintenance. Previous findings associating polygenic AD risk scores with cortical thickness in regions of the brain most affected in AD in healthy older adults [Sabuncu et al., 2012] further suggest these results are of clinical relevance. The use of composite genetic and imaging biomarkers improves predictions of AD progression [Filipovych et al., 2012] and suggests that complementary studies of cognitive maintenance genetic variants and anatomical correlates may be useful in identifying individuals most likely to experience successful cognitive aging. Similar to studies of brain regions affected in AD, multimodal studies of longitudinal change in RECN volume may also allow for identification of additional gene modifiers [Vounou et al., 2012] and functional pathways [Silver et al., 2012] that promote healthy cognition in aging. Future studies will be required to generalize these findings to diverse populations and to directly assess whether they have a modifying role in disease risk, trajectory, and outcome.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Supporting Information
  • Albagha OM, Wani SE, Visconti MR, Alonso N, Goodman K, Brandi ML, Cundy T, Chung PY, Dargie R, Devogelaer JP, Falchetti A, Fraser WD, Gennari L, Gianfrancesco F, Hooper MJ, Van Hul W, Isaia G, Nicholson GC, Nuti R, Papapoulos S, Montes Jdel P, Ratajczak T, Rea SL, Rendina D, Gonzalez-Sarmiento R, Di Stefano M, Ward LC, Walsh JP, Ralston SH (2011): Genetic Determinants of Paget's Disease (GDPD) Consortium. Genome-wide association identifies three new susceptibility loci for Paget's disease of bone. Nat Genet 43:685-689.
  • Arvanitakis Z, Wilson RS, Bienias JL, Evans DA, Bennett DA (2004): Diabetes mellitus and risk of Alzheimer disease and decline in cognitive function. Arch Neurol 61:661-666.
  • Ashburner J (2007): A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage 38:95-113.
  • Ashburner J, Friston KJ. (2000): Voxel-based morphometry—The methods. Neuroimage 11(6 Pt 1):805-821.
  • Baker LD, Cross DJ, Minoshima S, Belongia D, Watson GS, Craft S (2011): Insulin resistance and Alzheimer-like reductions in regional cerebral glucose metabolism for cognitively normal adults with prediabetes or early type 2 diabetes. Arch Neurol 68:51-57.
  • Bates E, Wilson SM, Saygin AP, Dick F, Sereno MI, Knight RT, Dronkers NF (2003): Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping. Nat Neurosci 6:448-450.
  • Batmanghelich N, Dalca A, Sabuncu MR, Golland P (2013): Joint modeling of imaging and genetics. Information Processing in Medical Imaging. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany pp 766-777.
  • Beecham GW, Martin ER, Li YJ, Slifer MA, Gilbert JR, Haines JL, Pericak-Vance MA (2009): Genome-wide association study implicates a chromosome 12 risk locus for late-onset Alzheimer disease. Am J Hum Genet 84:35-43.
  • Blank JB, Cawthon PM, Carrion-Petersen ML, Harper L, Johnson JP, Mitson E, Delay RR (2005): Overview of recruitment for the osteoporotic fractures in men study (MrOS). Contemp Clin Trials 26:557-568.
  • Blau CW, Cowley TR, O'Sullivan J, Grehan B, Browne TC, Kelly L, Birch A, Murphy N, Kelly AM, Kerskens CM, Lynch MA (2011): The age-related deficit in LTP is associated with changes in perfusion and blood-brain barrier permeability. Neurobiol Aging 33:1005.e231005.e35.
  • Caselli RJ, Reiman EM, Locke DE, Hutton ML, Hentz JG, Hoffman-Snyder C, Woodruff BK, Alexander GE, Osborne D (2007): Cognitive domain decline in healthy apolipoprotein E epsilon4 homozygotes before the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol 64:1306-1311.
  • Caselli RJ, Dueck AC, Huentelman MJ, Lutz MW, Saunders AM, Reiman EM, Roses AD (2012): Longitudinal modeling of cognitive aging and the TOMM40 effect. Alzheimers Dement 8:490-495.
  • Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Stone K, Fox KM, Ensrud KE, Cauley J, Black D, Vogt TM (1995): Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med 332:767-773.
  • Filipovych R, Gaonkar B, Davatzikos C (2012): A Composite Multivariate Polygenic and Neuroimaging Score for Prediction of Conversion to Alzheimer's Disease. University College London, London, UK pp 105-108.
  • Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975): “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189-198.
  • Habas C, Kamdar N, Nguyen D, Prater K, Beckmann CF, Menon V, Greicius MD (2009): Distinct cerebellar contributions to intrinsic connectivity networks. J Neurosci 29:8586-8594.
  • Hayasaka S, Nichols TE (2004): Combining voxel intensity and cluster extent with permutation test framework. Neuroimage 23:54-63.
  • Hinman JD, Abraham CR (2007): What's behind the decline? The role of white matter in brain aging. Neurochem Res 32:2023-2031.
  • Hollingworth P, Sweet R, Sims R, Harold D, Russo G, Abraham R, Stretton A, Jones N, Gerrish A, Chapman J, Ivanov D, Moskvina V, Lovestone S, Priotsi P, Lupton M, Brayne C, Gill M, Lawlor B, Lynch A, Craig D, McGuinness B, Johnston J, Holmes C, Livingston G, Bass NJ, Gurling H, McQuillin A; GERAD Consortium; National Institute on Aging Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease Family Study Group, Holmans P, Jones L, Devlin B, Klei L, Barmada MM, Demirci FY, DeKosky ST, Lopez OL, Passmore P, Owen MJ, O'Donovan MC, Mayeux R, Kamboh MI, Williams J (2012): Genome-wide association study of Alzheimer's disease with psychotic symptoms. Mol Psychiatry 17:1316-1327.
  • Jun G, Vardarajan BN, Buros J, Yu CE, Hawk MV, Dombroski BA, Crane PK, Larson EB; Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Consortium, Mayeux R, Haines JL, Lunetta KL, Pericak-Vance MA, Schellenberg GD, Farrer LA (2012): Comprehensive search for Alzheimer disease susceptibility loci in the APOE region. Arch Neurol 69:1270-1279.
  • Kamboh MI, Barmada MM, Demirci FY, Minster RL, Carrasquillo MM, Pankratz VS, Younkin SG, Saykin AJ; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Sweet RA, Feingold E, DeKosky ST, Lopez OL (2012a): Genome-wide association analysis of age-at-onset in Alzheimer's disease. Mol Psychiatry 17:1340-1346.
  • Kamboh MI, Demirci FY, Wang X, Minster RL, Carrasquillo MM, Pankratz VS, Younkin SG, Saykin AJ; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Jun G, Baldwin C, Logue MW, Buros J, Farrer L, Pericak-Vance MA, Haines JL, Sweet RA, Ganguli M, Feingold E, Dekosky ST, Lopez OL, Barmada MM (2012b): Genome-wide association study of Alzheimer's disease. Transl Psychiatry 2:e117.
  • Kaup AR, Mirzakhanian H, Jeste DV, Eyler LT (2011): A review of the brain structure correlates of successful cognitive aging. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 23:6-15.
  • Kimberg DY, Coslett HB, Schwartz MF (2007): Power in Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping. J Cogn Neurosci 19:1067-1080.
  • Lambert MP, Barlow AK, Chromy BA, Edwards C, Freed R, Liosatos M, Morgan TE, Rozovsky I, Trommer B, Viola KL, Wals P, Zhang C, Finch CE, Krafft GA, Klein WL (1998): Diffusible, nonfibrillar ligands derived from Abeta1-42 are potent central nervous system neurotoxins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:6448-6453.
  • Lango Allen H, Estrada K, Lettre G, Berndt SI, Weedon MN, Rivadeneira F, Willer CJ, Jackson AU, Vedantam S, Raychaudhuri S, Ferreira T, Wood AR, Weyant RJ, Segrè AV, Speliotes EK, Wheeler E, Soranzo N, Park JH, Yang J, Gudbjartsson D, Heard-Costa NL, Randall JC, Qi L, Vernon Smith A, Mägi R, Pastinen T, Liang L, Heid IM, Luan J, Thorleifsson G, Winkler TW, Goddard ME, Sin Lo K, Palmer C, Workalemahu T, Aulchenko YS, Johansson A, Zillikens MC, Feitosa MF, Esko T, Johnson T, Ketkar S, Kraft P, Mangino M, Prokopenko I, Absher D, Albrecht E, Ernst F, Glazer NL, Hayward C, Hottenga JJ, Jacobs KB, Knowles JW, Kutalik Z, Monda KL, Polasek O, Preuss M, Rayner NW, Robertson NR, Steinthorsdottir V, Tyrer JP, Voight BF, Wiklund F, Xu J, Zhao JH, Nyholt DR, Pellikka N, Perola M, Perry JR, Surakka I, Tammesoo ML, Altmaier EL, Amin N, Aspelund T, Bhangale T, Boucher G, Chasman DI, Chen C, Coin L, Cooper MN, Dixon AL, Gibson Q, Grundberg E, Hao K, Juhani Junttila M, Kaplan LM, Kettunen J, König IR, Kwan T, Lawrence RW, Levinson DF, Lorentzon M, McKnight B, Morris AP, Müller M, Suh Ngwa J, Purcell S, Rafelt S, Salem RM, Salvi E, Sanna S, Shi J, Sovio U, Thompson JR, Turchin MC, Vandenput L, Verlaan DJ, Vitart V, White CC, Ziegler A, Almgren P, Balmforth AJ, Campbell H, Citterio L, De Grandi A, Dominiczak A, Duan J, Elliott P, Elosua R, Eriksson JG, Freimer NB, Geus EJ, Glorioso N, Haiqing S, Hartikainen AL, Havulinna AS, Hicks AA, Hui J, Igl W, Illig T, Jula A, Kajantie E, Kilpeläinen TO, Koiranen M, Kolcic I, Koskinen S, Kovacs P, Laitinen J, Liu J, Lokki ML, Marusic A, Maschio A, Meitinger T, Mulas A, Paré G, Parker AN, Peden JF, Petersmann A, Pichler I, Pietiläinen KH, Pouta A, Ridderstråle M, Rotter JI, Sambrook JG, Sanders AR, Schmidt CO, Sinisalo J, Smit JH, Stringham HM, Bragi Walters G, Widen E, Wild SH, Willemsen G, Zagato L, Zgaga L, Zitting P, Alavere H, Farrall M, McArdle WL, Nelis M, Peters MJ, Ripatti S, van Meurs JB, Aben KK, Ardlie KG, Beckmann JS, Beilby JP, Bergman RN, Bergmann S, Collins FS, Cusi D, den Heijer M, Eiriksdottir G, Gejman PV, Hall AS, Hamsten A, Huikuri HV, Iribarren C, Kähönen M, Kaprio J, Kathiresan S, Kiemeney L, Kocher T, Launer LJ, Lehtimäki T, Melander O, Mosley TH Jr, Musk AW, Nieminen MS, O'Donnell CJ, Ohlsson C, Oostra B, Palmer LJ, Raitakari O, Ridker PM, Rioux JD, Rissanen A, Rivolta C, Schunkert H, Shuldiner AR, Siscovick DS, Stumvoll M, Tönjes A, Tuomilehto J, van Ommen GJ, Viikari J, Heath AC, Martin NG, Montgomery GW, Province MA, Kayser M, Arnold AM, Atwood LD, Boerwinkle E, Chanock SJ, Deloukas P, Gieger C, Grönberg H, Hall P, Hattersley AT, Hengstenberg C, Hoffman W, Lathrop GM, Salomaa V, Schreiber S, Uda M, Waterworth D, Wright AF, Assimes TL, Barroso I, Hofman A, Mohlke KL, Boomsma DI, Caulfield MJ, Cupples LA, Erdmann J, Fox CS, Gudnason V, Gyllensten U, Harris TB, Hayes RB, Jarvelin MR, Mooser V, Munroe PB, Ouwehand WH, Penninx BW, Pramstaller PP, Quertermous T, Rudan I, Samani NJ, Spector TD, Völzke H, Watkins H, Wilson JF, Groop LC, Haritunians T, Hu FB, Kaplan RC, Metspalu A, North KE, Schlessinger D, Wareham NJ, Hunter DJ, O'Connell JR, Strachan DP, Wichmann HE, Borecki IB, van Duijn CM, Schadt EE, Thorsteinsdottir U, Peltonen L, Uitterlinden AG, Visscher PM, Chatterjee N, Loos RJ, Boehnke M, McCarthy MI, Ingelsson E, Lindgren CM, Abecasis GR, Stefansson K, Frayling TM, Hirschhorn JN (2010): Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature 467:832-838.
  • Lee Y-S, Silva AJ (2009): The molecular and cellular biology of enhanced cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:126-140.
  • Logue MW, Schu M, Vardarajan BN, Buros J, Green RC, Go RC, Griffith P, Obisesan TO, Shatz R, Borenstein A, Cupples LA, Lunetta KL, Fallin MD, Baldwin CT, Farrer LA; Multi-Institutional Research on Alzheimer Genetic Epidemiology (MIRAGE) Study Group (2011): A comprehensive genetic association study of Alzheimer disease in African Americans. Arch Neurol 68:1569-1579.
  • Luykx JJ, Bakker SC, Lentjes E, Neeleman M, Strengman E, Mentink L, Deyoung J, de Jong S, Sul JH, Eskin E, van Eijk K, van Setten J, Buizer-Voskamp JE, Cantor RM, Lu A, van Amerongen M, van Dongen EP, Keijzers P, Kappen T, Borgdorff P, Bruins P, Derks EM, Kahn RS, Ophoff RA (2013): Genome-wide association study of monoamine metabolite levels in human cerebrospinal fluid. Mol Psychiatry 19:228234.
  • Magi R, Morris AP (2010): GWAMA: Software for genome-wide association meta-analysis. BMC Bioinform 11:288.
  • Magi R, Lindgren CM, Morris AP (2010): Meta-analysis of sex-specific genome-wide association studies. Genet Epidemiol 34:846-853.
  • Mauceri D, Freitag HE, Oliveira AMM, Bengtson CP, Bading H (2011): Nuclear calcium-VEGFD signaling controls maintenance of dendrite arborization necessary for memory formation. Neuron 71:117-130.
  • McClay JL, Adkins DE, Aberg K, Bukszar J, Khachane AN, Keefe RS, Perkins DO, McEvoy JP, Stroup TS, Vann RE, Beardsley PM, Lieberman JA, Sullivan PF, van den Oord EJ (2011): Genome-wide pharmacogenomic study of neurocognition as an indicator of antipsychotic treatment response in schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 36:616-626.
  • Meng W, Butterworth J, Bradley DT, Hughes AE, Soler V, Calvas P, Malecaze F (2012): A genome-wide association study provides evidence for association of chromosome 8p23 (MYP10) and 10q21.1 (MYP15) with high myopia in the French Population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:7983-7988.
  • Montembeault M, Joubert S, Doyon J, Carrier J, Gagnon JF, Monchi O, Lungu O, Belleville S, Brambati SM (2012): The impact of aging on gray matter structural covariance networks. Neuroimage 63:754-759.
  • Morris JC (1993): The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology 43:2412-2414.
  • Neuhaus J (1999): Bias and efficiency loss due to misclassified responses in binary regression. Biometrika 86:843-855.
  • Orwoll E, Blank JB, Barrett-Connor E, Cauley J, Cummings S, Ensrud K, Lewis C, Cawthon PM, Marcus R, Marshall LM, McGowan J, Phipps K, Sherman S, Stefanick ML, Stone K (2005): Design and baseline characteristics of the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study—A large observational study of the determinants of fracture in older men. Contemp Clin Trials 26:569-585.
  • Panza F, Frisardi V, Capurso C, Imbimbo BP, Vendemiale G, Santamato A, D'Onofrio G, Seripa D, Sancarlo D, Pilotto A, Solfrizzi V (2010): Metabolic syndrome and cognitive impairment: Current epidemiology and possible underlying mechanisms. J Alzheimers Dis 21:691-724.
  • Prokopenko I, Langenberg C, Florez JC, Saxena R, Soranzo N, Thorleifsson G, Loos RJ, Manning AK, Jackson AU, Aulchenko Y, Potter SC, Erdos MR, Sanna S, Hottenga JJ, Wheeler E, Kaakinen M, Lyssenko V, Chen WM, Ahmadi K, Beckmann JS, Bergman RN, Bochud M, Bonnycastle LL, Buchanan TA, Cao A, Cervino A, Coin L, Collins FS, Crisponi L, de Geus EJ, Dehghan A, Deloukas P, Doney AS, Elliott P, Freimer N, Gateva V, Herder C, Hofman A, Hughes TE, Hunt S, Illig T, Inouye M, Isomaa B, Johnson T, Kong A, Krestyaninova M, Kuusisto J, Laakso M, Lim N, Lindblad U, Lindgren CM, McCann OT, Mohlke KL, Morris AD, Naitza S, Orrù M, Palmer CN, Pouta A, Randall J, Rathmann W, Saramies J, Scheet P, Scott LJ, Scuteri A, Sharp S, Sijbrands E, Smit JH, Song K, Steinthorsdottir V, Stringham HM, Tuomi T, Tuomilehto J, Uitterlinden AG, Voight BF, Waterworth D, Wichmann HE, Willemsen G, Witteman JC, Yuan X, Zhao JH, Zeggini E, Schlessinger D, Sandhu M, Boomsma DI, Uda M, Spector TD, Penninx BW, Altshuler D, Vollenweider P, Jarvelin MR, Lakatta E, Waeber G, Fox CS, Peltonen L, Groop LC, Mooser V, Cupples LA, Thorsteinsdottir U, Boehnke M, Barroso I, Van Duijn C, Dupuis J, Watanabe RM, Stefansson K, McCarthy MI, Wareham NJ, Meigs JB, Abecasis GR (2009): Variants in MTNR1B influence fasting glucose levels. Nat Genet 41:77-81.
  • Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D, Maller J, Sklar P, de Bakker PI, Daly MJ, Sham PC (2007): PLINK: A tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81:559-575.
  • Ramanan VK, Risacher SL, Nho K, Kim S, Swaminathan S, Shen L, Foroud TM, Hakonarson H, Huentelman MJ, Aisen PS, Petersen RC, Green RC, Jack CR, Koeppe RA, Jagust WJ, Weiner MW, Saykin AJ (2013): APOE and BCHE as modulators of cerebral amyloid deposition: A florbetapir PET genome-wide association study. Mol Psychiatry. Available at: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201319a.html.
  • Rankin KP, Kramer JH, Miller BL (2005): Patterns of cognitive and emotional empathy in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Cogn Behav Neurol 18:28-36.
  • Raz N, Rodrigue KM (2006): Differential aging of the brain: Patterns, cognitive correlates and modifiers. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30:730-748.
  • Sabatti C, Service SK, Hartikainen AL, Pouta A, Ripatti S, Brodsky J, Jones CG, Zaitlen NA, Varilo T, Kaakinen M, Sovio U, Ruokonen A, Laitinen J, Jakkula E, Coin L, Hoggart C, Collins A, Turunen H, Gabriel S, Elliot P, McCarthy MI, Daly MJ, Järvelin MR, Freimer NB, Peltonen L (2009): Genome-wide association analysis of metabolic traits in a birth cohort from a founder population. Nat Genet 41:35-46.
  • Sabuncu MR, Buckner RL, Smoller JW, Lee PH, Fischl B, Sperling RA (2012): The association between a polygenic Alzheimer score and cortical thickness in clinically normal subjects. Cereb Cortex 22:2653-2661.
  • Seripa D, Bizzarro A, Pilotto A, Palmieri O, Panza F, D'Onofrio G, Gravina C, Archetti S, Daniele A, Borroni B, Padovani A, Masullo C (2012): TOMM40, APOE, and APOC1 in primary progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 31:731-740.
  • Silver M, Janousova E, Hua X, Thompson PM, Montana G (2012): Identification of gene pathways implicated in Alzheimer's disease using longitudinal imaging phenotypes with sparse regression. Neuroimage 63:1681-1694.
  • Sturm VE, Yokoyama JS, Seeley WW, Kramer JH, Miller BL, Rankin KP (2013): Heightened emotional contagion in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease is associated with temporal lobe degeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:9944-9949.
  • Sweet RA, Seltman H, Emanuel JE, Lopez OL, Becker JT, Bis JC, Weamer EA, DeMichele-Sweet MA, Kuller LH (2012): Effect of Alzheimer's disease risk genes on trajectories of cognitive function in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Am J Psychiatry 169:954-962.
  • Teng EL, Chui HC (1987): The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination. J Clin Psychiatry 48:314-318.
  • Thompson PM, Martin NG, Wright MJ (2010): Imaging genomics. Curr Opin Neurol 23:368-373.
  • Tomasi D, Volkow ND (2012): Aging and functional brain networks. Mol Psychiatry 17:471, 549-558.
  • Treinin M (2008): RIC-3 and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors: Biogenesis, properties, and diversity. Biotechnol J 3:1539-1547.
  • Vogt MT, Rubin DA, Palermo L, Christianson L, Kang JD, Nevitt MC, Cauley JA (2003): Lumbar spine listhesis in older African American women. Spine J 3:255-261.
  • Vounou M, Janousova E, Wolz R, Stein JL, Thompson PM, Rueckert D, Montana G (2012): Sparse reduced-rank regression detects genetic associations with voxel-wise longitudinal phenotypes in Alzheimer's disease. Neuroimage 60:700-716.
  • Wang HY, Lee DH, Davis CB, Shank RP (2000): Amyloid peptide Abeta(1-42) binds selectively and with picomolar affinity to alpha7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. J Neurochem 75:1155-1161.
  • Willer CJ, Li Y, Abecasis GR (2010): METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 26:2190-2191.
  • Wilson SM, Brambati SM, Henry RG, Handwerker DA, Agosta F, Miller BL, Wilkins DP, Ogar JM, Gorno-Tempini ML (2009): The neural basis of surface dyslexia in semantic dementia. Brain 132(Pt 1):71-86.
  • Yaffe K (2007a): Metabolic syndrome and cognitive decline. Curr Alzheimer Res 4:123-126.
  • Yaffe K (2007b): Metabolic syndrome and cognitive disorders: Is the sum greater than its parts? Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 21:167-171.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. REFERENCES
  8. Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
hbm22494-sup-0001-suppinfo.docx778KSupplementary Information

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.