Skip to main content
Download PDF

Mendelian randomization highlights significant difference and genetic heterogeneity in clinically diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease GWAS and self-report proxy phenotype GWAX

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy volume 14, Article number: 17 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Until now, Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have investigated the causal association of risk factors with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) using large-scale AD genome-wide association studies (GWAS), GWAS by proxy (GWAX), and meta-analyses of GWAS and GWAX (GWAS+GWAX) datasets. However, it currently remains unclear about the consistency of MR estimates across these GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets.

Methods

Here, we first selected 162 independent educational attainment genetic variants as the potential instrumental variables (N = 405,072). We then selected one AD GWAS dataset (N = 63,926), two AD GWAX datasets (N = 314,278 and 408,942), and three GWAS+GWAX datasets (N = 388,324, 455,258, and 472,868). Finally, we conducted a MR analysis to evaluate the impact of educational attainment on AD risk across these datasets. Meanwhile, we tested the genetic heterogeneity of educational attainment genetic variants across these datasets.

Results

In AD GWAS dataset, MR analysis showed that each SD increase in years of schooling (about 3.6 years) was significantly associated with 29% reduced AD risk (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.60–0.84, and P=1.02E−04). In AD GWAX dataset, MR analysis highlighted that each SD increase in years of schooling significantly increased 84% AD risk (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 1.59–2.13, and P=4.66E−16). Meanwhile, MR analysis suggested the ambiguous findings in AD GWAS+GWAX datasets. Heterogeneity test indicated evidence of genetic heterogeneity in AD GWAS and GWAX datasets.

Conclusions

We highlighted significant difference and genetic heterogeneity in clinically diagnosed AD GWAS and self-report proxy phenotype GWAX. Our MR findings are consistent with recent findings in AD genetic variants. Hence, the GWAX and GWAS+GWAX findings and MR findings from GWAX and GWAS+GWAX should be carefully interpreted and warrant further investigation using the AD GWAS dataset.

Background

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disease [1, 2]. From 2009 to 2019, large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been conducted using clinically diagnosed AD and cognitively normal controls, and successfully identified multiple common AD genetic variants with genome-wide significance P < 5.00E−08 [3,4,5,6,7,8,9], especially two large-scale GWAS meta-analyses from the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project (IGAP) including the IGAP 2013 (n= 74,046, 25,580 cases, and 48,466 controls) [6], and the IGAP 2019 (n= 94,437, including 35,274 cases and 59,163 controls) [9]. However, these genetic variants could only explain about 40% of the genetic variance of AD [10,11,12]. Hence, the majority of AD genetic risk remains undiscovered [10,11,12]. Until recently, GWAS for family history of AD, known as GWAS by AD proxy phenotype (GWAX) using UK Biobank individuals is widely used to increase the sample size into the traditional GWAS, which may contribute to identify more additional novel genetic variants [13,14,15]. These meta-analyses of AD GWAS and GWAX (GWAS+GWAX) have reported novel findings [13,14,15].

Importantly, all these AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX summary datasets are publicly available, which provides strong data support to investigate the causal association between AD and previously reported risk factors using a Mendelian randomization (MR) design [16,17,18]. Meanwhile, there is no strict standard to limit the use of AD GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX datasets in MR studies. Hence, some MR studies are based on the AD GWAS datasets from IGAP 2013 or IGAP 2019 [19,20,21,22,23,24,25], of which three MR studies had evaluated the impact of multiple modifiable risk factors on AD [16,17,18]. In 2017, Larsson and colleagues selected 24 potentially modifiable risk factors and found that only increased educational attainment was significantly associated with a reduced risk of AD [16]. In 2020, Wang and colleagues analyzed 45 potentially modifiable risk factors, and eventually highlighted educational attainment and urate levels [17]. In 2021, Andrews and colleagues selected 22 risk factors, and eventually identified educational attainment using polygenic risk scores (PRS) and MR [18]. Meanwhile, others MR studies are based on the AD GWAS+GWAX datasets [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. However, it currently remains unclear about the consistency of MR estimates from AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets.

Here, we selected the educational attainment as the risk factor, and evaluated its impact on AD risk using large-scale AD GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX datasets, as the causal association between educational attainment and AD had been well established in recent MR studies [16,17,18, 33].

Methods

Study design

MR is based on three principal assumptions. First, the instrumental variables (genetic variants) should be significantly associated with the exposure (educational attainment), generally achieving the genome-wide significant level (P<5.00E-08) [19]. Second, instrumental variables should not be associated with confounders of the exposure (educational attainment) and outcome (AD) [19]. Third, instrumental variables should affect the risk of the outcome (AD) only through exposure (educational attainment) [19]. The second and third assumptions are collectively known as independence from pleiotropy. Figure 1 provides a flow chart about our MR study design.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The flow chart about the MR study design. GWAS, genome-wide association studies; GWAX, GWAS by proxy; GWAS+GWAX, meta-analyses of GWAS and GWAX; IVW, Inverse-variance weighted; MR-PRESSO, Mendelian randomization pleiotropy residual sum and outlier

Full size image

Educational attainment genetic variants

We selected 162 independent educational attainment genetic variants with the genome-wide significance (P < 5.00E−08) to be the potential instrumental variables, as provided in supplementary Table 1 [34]. Educational attainment is a continuous variable, which is determined by the number of years of schooling completed at or above age 30 [34]. These 162 genetic variants are identified by a large-scale GWAS in 405,072 individuals of European descent including 293,723 individuals in discovery stage (SSGAC) and 111,349 individuals in the independent replication stage (UK Biobank) [34].

AD GWAS dataset

We selected the clinically diagnosed AD GWAS dataset from IGAP 2019 stage 1 including 21,982 AD cases and 41,944 cognitively normal controls of European descent [9]. This GWAS dataset is based on a meta-analysis using participants from four AD consortia including Alzheimer Disease Genetics Consortium, Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology Consortium (CHARGE), The European Alzheimer’s Disease Initiative (EADI), and Genetic and Environmental Risk in AD/Defining Genetic, Polygenic and Environmental Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease Consortium (GERAD/PERADES) [9]. Table 1 provides the demographic profile about the AD GWAS dataset.

Table 1 Demographic profile about the selected AD GWAS datasets
Full size table

AD GWAX datasets

We selected two GWAX datasets for AD proxy phenotype including GWAX 2018 [13], and GWAX 2021 [15], respectively. Both studies are based on the UK Biobank participants [35]. UK Biobank is a large national and international health resource including the genetic and phenotype data from 502,536 community-dwelling individuals aged between 37 and 73 years recruited in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 [35]. In UK Biobank, a proxy phenotype for AD case-control status was assessed via self-report [13]. Participants were asked to report “Has/did your father or mother ever suffer from Alzheimer’s disease/dementia?” [13]. Table 1 provides the demographic profile about these two AD GWAX datasets.

AD GWAS+GWAX datasets

We selected three large-scale AD GWAS+GWAX datasets including GWAS+GWAX 2018 (a meta-analysis using IGAP 2013 and UK Biobank) [13], GWAS+GWAX 2019 (a meta-analysis using IGAP 2013, PGC-ALZ, ADSP, and UK Biobank) [14], and GWAS+GWAX 2021 (a meta-analysis using IGAP 2019 and UK Biobank) [15], respectively. All these three GWAS+GWAX datasets included the IGAP and UK Biobank participants, and are not independent of each other. Table 1 provides the demographic profile about the three GWAS+GWAX datasets.

Establishing the Wald estimator

For the same effect allele from each educational attainment genetic variant Gj(j = 1, …, 162), we assume that we have successfully extracted their corresponding summary results in educational attainment GWAS dataset including the beta coefficients and their standard errors (\({\hat{\beta}}_{Xj}, se\left({\hat{\beta}}_{Xj}\right)\)), and in the AD GWAS, GWAX and GWAS+GWAX datasets including the beta coefficients and their standard errors (\({\hat{\beta}}_{Yj}, se\left({\hat{\beta}}_{Yj}\right)\)). For a given genetic variant, the causal effect of educational attainment on AD can be consistently estimated as a simple ratio, also called the Wald estimator \({\hat{\theta}}_j=\frac{{\hat{\beta}}_{Yj}}{{\hat{\beta}}_{Xj}}\) and its approximate variance \({v}_j=\frac{se{\left({\hat{\beta}}_{Yj}\right)}^2}{{{\hat{\beta}}_{Xj}}^2}\) [19, 36].

MR analysis

Using the Wald estimator from each educational attainment genetic variant, we conducted the MR analysis using four MR methods including inverse-variance weighted (IVW), weighted median, MR-Egger, and MR-PRESSO (Mendelian Randomization Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier) to combine the variant-specific estimates and get the overall estimate [36,37,38,39]. IVW is the main MR analysis method, which combines the variant-specific Wald estimators by taking the inverse of their approximate variances as the corresponding weights [37]. Weighted median could derive consistent estimates when up to 50% of instruments are not valid [37]. MR-Egger could test the presence of potential pleiotropy and account for this potential pleiotropy using the MR-Egger intercept test [36]. MR-PRESSO could detect and correct for the horizontal pleiotropy via outlier removal (the MR-PRESSO outlier test) [40]. The odds ratio (OR) as well as 95% confidence interval (CI) of AD corresponds to about per 3.6 years increase (about 1 standard deviation (SD)) in EduYears. All the statistical tests were completed using R Packages “MendelianRandomization” [39] and “MR-PRESSO” [40]. The significance threshold is P < 0.05.

Heterogeneity test and paired-samples T test

We performed a heterogeneity test of the Wald estimators using the Cochran’s Q statistic and the I2 statistic [41]. Cochran’s Q statistic approximately follows a χ2 distribution with k-1 degrees of freedom (k is the number of the selected studies) [42]. \({I}^2=\left(\mathrm{Q}-\left(\mathrm{k}-1\right)\right)\left/ Q\times 100\%\right.\) ranges from 0 to 100%, with 0–25%, 25–50%, 50–75%, and 75–100% corresponding to low, moderate, large and extreme heterogeneity, respectively [42]. Importantly, the Cochran’s Q statistic and I2 assume that the subjects are independent of one another and were selected at random from a larger population. Hence, we only test the heterogeneity in AD GWAS and GWAX including two comparisons GWAS vs. GWAX 2018, and GWAS vs. GWAX 2021. All statistical tests were completed using R Package “meta: General Package for Meta-Analysis.”

In line with the heterogeneity test, we further conducted the paired-samples T test to evaluate the average differences of Wald estimators in GWAS vs. GWAX 2018, and GWAS vs. GWAX 2021. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is widely used to analyze the differences among means from multiple independent (unrelated) groups. However, the selected AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets are not completely independent with each other. Therefore we could not provide the overall differences among the mean effect sizes across the AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets. Here, we provide a combined plot using all shared genetic variants to visualize the differences in effect sizes and directions across the six datasets.

Results

MR analysis in AD GWAS dataset

We extracted the GWAS summary statistics of 159 educational attainment genetic variants in the AD GWAS dataset, as provided in supplementary Table 2. Using the MR-Egger intercept test, we did not identify any significant pleiotropic variant. Using MR-PRESSO Global Test, we found two genetic variants rs268134 and rs28420834 to be the pleiotropic variants (Table 2). Hence, we excluded both variants in MR analysis. IVW showed that each SD increase in years of schooling (about 3.6 years) was significantly associated with 29% reduced AD risk (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.60–0.84, and P=1.02E−04). Interestingly, evidence from weighted median, MR-Egger, and MR-PRESSO further supported this finding, as provided in Table 3. Meanwhile, all the MR estimates from these four methods are consistent in terms of direction.

Table 2 Pleiotropy analysis in AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets
Full size table
Table 3 MR analysis of the association between educational attainment and AD
Full size table

MR analysis in AD GWAX datasets

We extracted the GWAS summary statistics of 147 and 159 educational attainment genetic variants in GWAX 2018, and GWAX 2021, respectively, as provided in supplementary Table 3-4. In GWAX 2018, no pleiotropic variant is identified using both the MR-Egger intercept test and MR-PRESSO Global Test (Table 2). MR analysis indicated no significant causal association between educational attainment and AD, as provided in Table 3. However, two methods showed an increased trend of AD risk with high educational attainment including IVW (OR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.00–1.19, and P=0.051), and MR-PRESSO (OR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.00–1.20, and P=0.053). In GWAX 2021, rs268134 is identified to be a pleiotropic variant and then excluded in MR analysis (Table 2). IVW highlighted that each SD increase in years of schooling could significantly increase 84% AD risk (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 1.59–2.13, and P=4.66E−16). The MR estimates from weighted median, MR-Egger and MR-PRESSO were consistent with the IVW estimate in terms of direction and magnitude (Table 3).

MR analysis in AD GWAS+GWAX datasets

We extracted the GWAS summary statistics of 147, 155, and 159 educational attainment genetic variants in GWAS+GWAX 2018, GWAS+GWAX 2019, and GWAS+GWAX 2021, respectively, as provided in supplementary Table 5-7. Only in GWAS+GWAX 2021, MR-PRESSO indicated rs268134 to be a pleiotropic variant, and then excluded in MR analysis (Table 2). In GWAS+GWAX 2018, MR analysis showed no significant causal association between educational attainment and AD (Table 3). In GWAS+GWAX 2019, we found that high educational attainment could reduce the risk of AD (Table 3). In GWAS+GWAX 2021, MR analysis further supported the increased risk of AD with high educational attainment using four MR methods, as provided in Table 3. IVW showed that each SD increase in years of schooling could significantly increase 22% AD risk (OR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.08–1.36, and P=1.00E−03). The MR estimates from weighted median, MR-Egger and MR-PRESSO were consistent with the IVW estimate in terms of direction and magnitude (Table 3).

MR analysis in AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets using the same genetic variants

These above MR analyses were based on different educational attainment genetic variants as the instrumental variables in AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets. We further conducted a secondary MR analysis using the same educational attainment genetic variants in each AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets. Finally, we selected 143 same educational attainment genetic variants available across all datasets by excluding rs268134 and rs28420834, as both are pleiotropic variants. Interestingly, the secondary MR analysis supported these above findings, as provided in Table 4. Figure 2 is a combined plot, which visualizes the differences in effect sizes and directions across the six datasets using the 143 genetic variants.

Table 4 MR analysis of the association between educational attainment and AD using the same educational attainment genetic variants
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

A combined plot visualizing the differences in effect sizes and directions across the six datasets using the 143 genetic variants. GWAS, genome-wide association studies; GWAX, GWAS by proxy; GWAS+GWAX, meta-analyses of GWAS and GWAX

Full size image

Heterogeneity test and paired-samples T test

Using the 143 same educational attainment genetic variants, we tested the genetic heterogeneity of the Wald estimators in AD GWAS and GWAX datasets. Using GWAS vs. GWAS 2018 comparison, 47 (33%) and 29 (20%) of 143 genetic variants showed evidence of heterogeneity with I2 > 25% and I2 > 50%, respectively. GWAS vs. GWAX 2021 comparison indicated that 57 (40%) and 44 (30%) of 143 genetic variants showed heterogeneity with I2 > 25% and I2 > 50%. paired-samples T test showed that the average Wald estimator in GWAS (mean = − 0.39) was significantly smaller than the average Wald estimators in GWAX 2018 (mean = 0.13, and P = 2.17E−06) and GWAX 2021 (mean = 0.65, and P = 3.16E−14), respectively.

Discussion

Until now, MR methods had been widely used to determine the causal association between AD and previously reported risk factors using the AD GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX summary datasets [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. However, the consistency of MR estimates from AD GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX datasets currently remains unclear. Here, we first evaluated the causal association of a well-established risk factor educational attainment with the risk of AD using large-scale GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX datasets [16,17,18, 33]. MR analysis in the AD GWAS dataset showed that high educational attainment could significantly reduce the risk of AD, which is consistent with recent findings [16,17,18, 33]. However, MR analysis indicated no significant causal association between educational attainment and AD in AD GWAX 2018 dataset, and even showed that high educational attainment increased the risk of AD in the AD GWAX 2021 dataset. Meanwhile, MR analysis in AD GWAS+GWAX datasets suggested the ambiguous findings about the causal association between educational attainment and AD. Hence, all these above findings indicated the inconsistency of MR estimates in AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets.

Interestingly, our findings are consistent with recent findings in AD genetic variants. Andrews and colleagues recently summarized and discussed 40 AD susceptibility loci with genome-wide significance, which were identified by at least one of the four studies [10], including GWAS 2013 [6], GWAS+GWAX 2018 [13], GWAS+GWAX 2019 [14], and GWAS 2019 [9]. They found that only 15 were replicated across all the four studies, and 9 were replicated in two or three studies at full genome-wide significance [10].

We further test the genetic heterogeneity of educational attainment genetic variants across the GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets. Interestingly, heterogeneity test indicated evidence of genetic heterogeneity across the GWAS, GWAS, and GWAS+GWAX datasets. Importantly, GWAS vs. GWAX 2021 comparison highlighted the largest number of genetic variants with heterogeneity. Hence, the genetic heterogeneity may have caused the opposite directions about the causal association between educational attainment and AD in clinically diagnosed AD and self-report proxy phenotype.

Our findings are consistent with recent hypothesis that the phenotypic heterogeneity may cause the genetic heterogeneity, and further reduce the statistical power for GWAX and GWAS+GWAX [10, 13]. It is known that the AD GWAX is based on the self-report AD proxy phenotype from UK Biobank participants [10, 13]. GWAX theoretically could increase the large-scale sample size into traditional AD GWAS, and further improve the statistical power [10, 13]. In fact, not all UK Biobank participants could discriminate AD from other dementia subtypes, and exactly reflect the clinically diagnosed AD status, considering the different presentations and genetic architectures [13]. Hence, the incorrect AD classification may reduce the statistical power to detect the true AD risk loci, and further influence the loci uncovered using GWAX and GWAS+GWAX [13]. This hypothesis may explain why only a small fraction of AD susceptibility loci could be replicated across the AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets. We think that this hypothesis and our findings from heterogeneity test may explain the inconsistency of MR estimates in AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX datasets. Meanwhile, the biological factors and medical interventions may also have dramatically different effects on different people [43].

Our MR study may have several strengths. First, we selected one large-scale educational attainment GWAS dataset, and six large-scale AD GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX datasets, which may provide ample power to detect the causal association between educational attainment and the risk of AD, as reported by recent MR studies [16,17,18, 33]. Importantly, all these participants are of European descent, which may further reduce the influence from population stratification. Third, we selected multiple MR methods and tested the pleiotropy. Hence, the MR assumptions did not seem to be violated. Fourth, educational attainment is well-established AD risk factor, as reported by recent MR studies [16,17,18, 33]. Hence, evaluating the impact of educational attainment on AD risk may exactly reflect the consistency of MR estimates from AD GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX datasets.

Limitations

Our MR study may have some limitations. First, we only selected one AD risk factor educational attainment to evaluate the consistency of MR estimates across AD GWAS, GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX datasets. In fact, several risk factors have been identified to be causally associated with AD risk [23, 26, 27, 44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. Hence, our findings should be further verified using other well-established AD risk factors. Second, the educational attainment of GWAS is based on the meta-analysis of SSGAC (293,723 individuals) and UK Biobank (111,349) [34]. Hence, the educational attainment GWAS dataset and GWAX, or GWAS+GWAX may have the overlapped individuals, and may not be independent. Hence, our MR findings from GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX should be further evaluated using independent datasets.

Conclusions

In summary, our MR analysis highlighted the difference and genetic heterogeneity in clinically diagnosed AD and self-report proxy phenotype using large-scale AD GWAS, GWAX, and GWAS+GWAX summary datasets. Hence, the GWAX and GWAS+GWAX findings and MR findings from GWAX and GWAS+GWAX should be carefully interpreted and warrant further investigation using the AD GWAS dataset.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant data are within the paper. The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are either fully available without restriction through consortia websites, or may be made available from consortia upon request. IGAP consortium data are available at http://web.pasteur-lille.fr/en/recherche/u744/igap/igap_download.php;https://www.niagads.org/datasets/ng00075.

References

  1. Liu G, Yao L, Liu J, Jiang Y, Ma G, Chen Z, et al. Cardiovascular disease contributes to Alzheimer's disease: evidence from large-scale genome-wide association studies. Neurobiol Aging. 2014;35(4):786–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hu Y, Sun JY, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Gao S, Wang T, et al. rs1990622 variant associates with Alzheimer's disease and regulates TMEM106B expression in human brain tissues. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Seshadri S, Fitzpatrick AL, Ikram MA, DeStefano AL, Gudnason V, Boada M, et al. Genome-wide analysis of genetic loci associated with Alzheimer disease. JAMA. 2010;303(18):1832–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hollingworth P, Harold D, Sims R, Gerrish A, Lambert JC, Carrasquillo MM, et al. Common variants at ABCA7, MS4A6A/MS4A4E, EPHA1, CD33 and CD2AP are associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):429–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lambert JC, Heath S, Even G, Campion D, Sleegers K, Hiltunen M, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and CR1 associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet. 2009;41(10):1094–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lambert JC, Ibrahim-Verbaas CA, Harold D, Naj AC, Sims R, Bellenguez C, et al. Meta-analysis of 74,046 individuals identifies 11 new susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet. 2013;45(12):1452–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Harold D, Abraham R, Hollingworth P, Sims R, Gerrish A, Hamshere ML, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies variants at CLU and PICALM associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet. 2009;41(10):1088–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Naj AC, Jun G, Beecham GW, Wang LS, Vardarajan BN, Buros J, et al. Common variants at MS4A4/MS4A6E, CD2AP, CD33 and EPHA1 are associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):436–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kunkle BW, Grenier-Boley B, Sims R, Bis JC, Damotte V, Naj AC, et al. Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer's disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Abeta, tau, immunity and lipid processing. Nat Genet. 2019;51(3):414–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Andrews SJ, Fulton-Howard B, Goate A. Interpretation of risk loci from genome-wide association studies of Alzheimer's disease. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(4):326–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bellenguez C, Grenier-Boley B, Lambert JC. Genetics of Alzheimer's disease: where we are, and where we are going. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2020;61:40–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sims R, Hill M, Williams J. The multiplex model of the genetics of Alzheimer's disease. Nat Neurosci. 2020;23(3):311–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marioni RE, Harris SE, Zhang Q, McRae AF, Hagenaars SP, Hill WD, et al. GWAS on family history of Alzheimer's disease. Transl Psychiatry. 2018;8(1):99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jansen IE, Savage JE, Watanabe K, Bryois J, Williams DM, Steinberg S, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies new loci and functional pathways influencing Alzheimer's disease risk. Nat Genet. 2019;51(3):404–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwartzentruber J, Cooper S, Liu JZ, Barrio-Hernandez I, Bello E, Kumasaka N, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis, fine-mapping and integrative prioritization implicate new Alzheimer's disease risk genes. Nat Genet. 2021;53(3):392–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Larsson SC, Traylor M, Malik R, Dichgans M, Burgess S, Markus HS. Modifiable pathways in Alzheimer's disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis. BMJ. 2017;359:j5375.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang Z, Meng L, Shen L, Ji HF. Impact of modifiable risk factors on Alzheimer's disease: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Neurobiol Aging. 2020;91:167 e111–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Andrews SJ, Fulton-Howard B, O'Reilly P, Marcora E, Goate AM. Causal Associations Between Modifiable Risk Factors and the Alzheimer's Phenome. Ann Neurol. 2021;89(1):54–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu G, Zhao Y, Jin S, Hu Y, Wang T, Tian R, et al. Circulating vitamin E levels and Alzheimer's disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Neurobiol Aging. 2018;72:189 e181–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang L, Qiao Y, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Hua J, Jin S, et al. Circulating Vitamin D Levels and Alzheimer's Disease: A Mendelian Randomization Study in the IGAP and UK Biobank. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;73(2):609–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. He Y, Zhang H, Wang T, Han Z, Ni QB, Wang K, et al. Impact of Serum Calcium Levels on Alzheimer's Disease: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;76(2):713–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fani L, Georgakis MK, Ikram MA, Ikram MK, Malik R, Dichgans M. Circulating biomarkers of immunity and inflammation, risk of Alzheimer's disease, and hippocampal volume: a Mendelian randomization study. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):291.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lord J, Jermy B, Green R, Wong A, Xu J, Legido-Quigley C, et al. Mendelian randomization identifies blood metabolites previously linked to midlife cognition as causal candidates in Alzheimer's disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(16):e2009808118.

  24. Anderson EL, Richmond RC, Jones SE, Hemani G, Wade KH, Dashti HS, et al. Is disrupted sleep a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease? Evidence from a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(3):817–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhuang Z, Yang R, Wang W, Qi L, Huang T. Associations between gut microbiota and Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia. J Neuroinflammation. 2020;17(1):288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Li X, Tian Y, Yang YX, Ma YH, Shen XN, Chen SD, et al. Life Course Adiposity and Alzheimer's Disease: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;82(2):503–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ma YH, Yang YX, Shen XN, Chen SD, Tan L, Dong Q, et al. Evaluation relationships between subjective wellbeing, personality traits, and Alzheimer's disease: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;137:498–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sproviero W, Winchester L, Newby D, Fernandes M, Shi L, Goodday SM, et al. High Blood Pressure and Risk of Dementia: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study in the UK Biobank. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;89(8):817–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shen LX, Yang YX, Kuo K, Li HQ, Chen SD, Chen KL, et al. Social Isolation, Social Interaction, and Alzheimer's Disease: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;80(2):665–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yeung CHC, Schooling CM. Systemic inflammatory regulators and risk of Alzheimer's disease: a bidirectional Mendelian-randomization study. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(3):829–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhuang Z, Gao M, Yang R, Liu Z, Cao W, Huang T. Causal relationships between gut metabolites and Alzheimer's disease: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. Neurobiol Aging. 2021;100:119 e115–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kwok MK, Schooling CM. Herpes simplex virus and Alzheimer's disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Neurobiol Aging. 2021;99:101 e111–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Anderson EL, Howe LD, Wade KH, Ben-Shlomo Y, Hill WD, Deary IJ, et al. Education, intelligence and Alzheimer's disease: evidence from a multivariable two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(4):1163–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Okbay A, Beauchamp JP, Fontana MA, Lee JJ, Pers TH, Rietveld CA, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature. 2016;533(7604):539–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(5):377–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40(4):304–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(2):512–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Yavorska OO, Burgess S. MendelianRandomization: an R package for performing Mendelian randomization analyses using summarized data. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(6):1734–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Verbanck M, Chen CY, Neale B, Do R. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat Genet. 2018;50(5):693–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Greco MF, Minelli C, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome. Stat Med. 2015;34(21):2926–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liu G, Zhang S, Cai Z, Ma G, Zhang L, Jiang Y, et al. PICALM Gene rs3851179 Polymorphism Contributes to Alzheimer's Disease in an Asian Population. Neuromolecular Med. 2013;15(2):384–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dahl A, Cai N, Ko A, Laakso M, Pajukanta P, Flint J, et al. Reverse GWAS: Using genetics to identify and model phenotypic subtypes. PLoS Genet. 2019;15(4):e1008009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhou M, Li H, Wang Y, Pan Y. Causal effect of insulin resistance on small vessel stroke and Alzheimer's disease: A Mendelian randomization analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.15190. Online ahead of print.

  45. Liu H, Zhang Y, Hu Y, Zhang H, Wang T, Han Z, et al. Mendelian randomization to evaluate the effect of plasma vitamin C levels on the risk of Alzheimer's disease. Genes Nutr. 2021;16(1):19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Huang SY, Yang YX, Kuo K, Li HQ, Shen XN, Chen SD, et al. Herpesvirus infections and Alzheimer's disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2021;13(1):158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang Z, Wang M, Liu X. C-reactive protein and risk of Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2022;109:259–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang RZ, Yang YX, Li HQ, Shen XN, Chen SD, Cui M, et al. Genetically determined low income modifies Alzheimer's disease risk. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(15):1222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Wu BS, Zhang YR, Li HQ, Kuo K, Chen SD, Dong Q, et al. Cortical structure and the risk for Alzheimer's disease: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang Z, Wang M, Yuan S, Cai H, Zhu SG, Liu X. Genetically Predicted Coffee Consumption and Risk of Alzheimer's Disease and Stroke. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;83(4):1815–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Handy A, Lord J, Green R, Xu J, Aarsland D, Velayudhan L, et al. Assessing Genetic Overlap and Causality Between Blood Plasma Proteins and Alzheimer's Disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;83(4):1825–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Li GH, Cheung CL, Cheung EY, Chan WC, Tan KC. Genetically Determined TSH Level Within Reference Range Is Inversely Associated With Alzheimer Disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106(12):e5064–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP) and Complex Trait Genetics lab (CTGlab), Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University & VU Medical Centre Amsterdam for providing summary results data. The investigators within IGAP contributed to the design and implementation of IGAP and/or provided data but did not participate in analysis or writing of this report. IGAP was made possible by the generous participation of the control subjects, the patients, and their families. The i-Select chips was funded by the French National Foundation on AD and related disorders. EADI was supported by the LABEX (laboratory of excellence program investment for the future) DISTALZ grant, Inserm, Institut Pasteur de Lille, Université de Lille 2, and the Lille University Hospital. GERAD was supported by the Medical Research Council (Grant n° 503480), Alzheimer's Research UK (Grant n° 503176), the Wellcome Trust (Grant n° 082604/2/07/Z) and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): Competence Network Dementia (CND) grant n° 01GI0102, 01GI0711, 01GI0420. CHARGE was partly supported by the NIH/NIA grant R01 AG033193 and the NIA AG081220 and AGES contract N01-AG-12100, the NHLBI grant R01 HL105756, the Icelandic Heart Association, and the Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University. ADGC was supported by the NIH/NIA grants: U01 AG032984, U24 AG021886, U01 AG016976, and the Alzheimer’s Association grant ADGC-10-196728. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank resource (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk). We thank the individual patients who provided the sample that made data available; without them, the study would not have been possible.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 82071212, and 81901181), the Mathematical Tianyuan Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12026414), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. JQ21022), and Beijing Ten Thousand Talents Project (Grant No. 2020A15). This work was also partially supported by funding from the Science and Technology Beijing One Hundred Leading Talent Training Project (Z141107001514006), the Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals’ Mission Plan (SML20150802), the Funds of Academic Promotion Programme of Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences (No. 2019QL016, No. 2019PT007).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100053, China

    Haijie Liu

  2. School of Life Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150080, China

    Yang Hu

  3. Department of Pathology, The Affiliated Hospital of Weifang Medical University, Weifang, 261053, China

    Yan Zhang

  4. Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders, Laboratory of Brain Disorders, Ministry of Science and Technology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Disorders, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China

    Haihua Zhang, Shan Gao & Guiyou Liu

  5. Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Weifang Medical University, Weifang, 261053, China

    Longcai Wang

  6. Chinese Institute for Brain Research, Beijing, China

    Tao Wang & Guiyou Liu

  7. State Key Laboratory of Medical Molecular Biology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China

    Zhifa Han

  8. Key Laboratory of Cerebral Microcirculation in Universities of Shandong, Department of Neurology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Taian, 271000, Shandong, China

    Bao-liang Sun & Guiyou Liu

  9. Beijing Key Laboratory of Hypoxia Translational Medicine, National Engineering Laboratory of Internet Medical Diagnosis and Treatment Technology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100053, China

    Guiyou Liu

Authors
  1. Haijie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yang Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haihua Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shan Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Longcai Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zhifa Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bao-liang Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Guiyou Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.Y.L., H.J.L., and Y.H. designed the study; G.Y.L., H.J.L., and Y.H. analyzed the data; all authors contributed to the interpretation of the results and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guiyou Liu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article contains human participants collected by several studies performed by previous studies. All participants gave informed consent in all the corresponding original studies, as described in the Materials and methods. Here, our study is based on the publicly available, large-scale datasets, and not the individual-level data. Hence, ethical approval was not sought.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

 Supplementary Table 1. 162 independent SNPs that reached genome-wide significance (P < 5×10-8) in the pooled-sex EduYears meta-analysis of the discovery and replication samples (N =405,072). Supplementary Table 2. GWAS summary statistics of 159 educational attainment genetic variants in AD GWAS dataset. Supplementary Table 3. GWAS summary statistics of 147 educational attainment genetic variants in AD GWAX 2018 dataset. Supplementary Table 4. GWAS summary statistics of 159 educational attainment genetic variants in AD GWAX 2021 dataset. Supplementary Table 5. GWAS summary statistics of 147 educational attainment genetic variants in AD GWAS+GWAX 2018 dataset. Supplementary Table 6. GWAS summary statistics of 159 educational attainment genetic variants in AD GWAS+GWAX 2019 dataset. Supplementary Table 7. GWAS summary statistics of 159 educational attainment genetic variants in AD GWAS+GWAX 2021 dataset.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, H., Hu, Y., Zhang, Y. et al. Mendelian randomization highlights significant difference and genetic heterogeneity in clinically diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease GWAS and self-report proxy phenotype GWAX. Alz Res Therapy 14, 17 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-00963-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-00963-3

Keywords

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1758-9193