Abstract
Psychotic symptoms, defined as the occurrence of delusions or hallucinations, are frequent in Alzheimer disease (AD with psychosis, AD+P), affecting ~ 40% to 60% of individuals with AD. AD+P identifies a subgroup of AD patients with poor outcomes. The strongest clinical predictor of AD+P is a greater degree of cognitive impairment than in AD subjects without psychosis (AD-P). Other frequently replicated correlates of AD+P include elevated depressive symptoms. Although the estimated heritability of psychosis in AD is 61%, the underlying genetic sources of this risk are not known. We report a genome-wide meta-analysis of 12,317 AD subjects, with and without psychosis. Results showed common genetic variation accounted for a significant portion of heritability. Two loci, one in the gene ENPP6 (best SNP rs9994623, O.R. (95%CI) 1.16 (1.10, 1.22), p=1.26×10-8) and one spanning the 3’-UTR of an alternatively spliced transcript of SUMF1 (best SNP rs201109606, O.R. 0.65 (0.56-0.76), p=3.24×10-8), had genome-wide significant associations with the risk of psychosis in AD. Psychosis risk in AD demonstrated negative genetic correlations with cognitive and educational attainment and positive genetic correlation with depressive symptoms. We had previously observed a negative genetic correlation with schizophrenia, instead we now found a stronger negative correlation with the related phenotype of bipolar disorder. Psychosis risk in AD was not genetically correlated with AD or other neurodegenerative diseases. These findings provide the first unbiased identification of the association of psychosis in AD with common genetic variation and provide insights into its genetic architecture. Study of the genetic mechanisms underlying the associations of loci in ENPP6 and SUMF1 with psychosis in AD are warranted.
Introduction
Psychotic symptoms, defined as the occurrence of delusions or hallucinations, constitute a phenotype within Alzheimer disease (AD+Psychosis, AD+P) that affects ~ 40% to 60% of individuals with AD and is associated with poor outcomes.1 In comparison to AD subjects without psychosis (AD-P), AD+P subjects have greater cognitive impairments and experience more rapid declines in cognition and function that begin prior to psychosis onset.2-9 AD+P is also often associated with increased rates of concurrent neuropsychiatric symptoms, including agitation,10 aggression,11,12 and depression.5,13-15 As a consequence, AD+P is associated with increased rates of other poor outcomes, including greater distress for family and caregivers,16 higher institutionalization rates,17-20 worse health,21 and increased mortality22 compared to AD-P patients.
The AD+P phenotype is well suited for genetic studies when careful attention is paid to excluding potential phenocopies of both AD+P and AD-P. For example, we have shown that the heritability of AD+P is greatest when requiring the presence of multiple or recurrent psychotic symptoms, rather than a one-time occurrence of a single symptom.23 Similarly, because psychotic symptoms typically emerge in the transition from mild to moderate stages of AD,5 individuals without psychosis who are still in the early stages of disease may later manifest psychosis, and therefore, need to be excluded from analysis. Using these approaches to phenotypic characterization, we have previously reported familial aggregation of AD+P,24 which has since been replicated in two independent cohorts.5,25 We further estimated the heritability of the presence or absence of psychosis in AD at 61%.23,26
Thus, AD+P is likely to be strongly influenced by genetic variation. To date, no study has identified genome-wide significant associations with AD+P, largely due to the small sample sizes of prior studies. However, in prior reports we identified negative genetic correlation of AD+P risk with risk for schizophrenia.27,28 We now report a large genome-wide association meta-analysis of 12,317 AD subjects with and without psychosis. We identified two loci with genome-wide significant associations with AD+P, in ENPP6 and SUMF1. AD+P was negatively genetically correlated with educational attainment and positively with depressive symptoms.
Surprisingly, AD+P was not significantly genetically correlated with schizophrenia, but it was negatively correlated with bipolar illness.
Materials and Methods
Subjects
This study analyzed samples from 12,317 subjects diagnosed with possible, probable,29 and when available, autopsy-confirmed definite30 Alzheimer disease (for subject characteristics see Table 1A). Diagnoses were made based on diagnostic evaluations, cognitive testing, and in some cases neuropathologic assessment, conducted during subjects’ participation in the following eight source programs as previously described: the Fundació ACE Barcelona Alzheimer Treatment and Research Center (ACE/GR@ACE),31-33 a Consortium of National Institute on Aging Alzheimer Disease Centers (ADC),34 Eli Lilly and Company (LILLY),35,36 the Norwegian, Exeter and King’s College Consortium for Genetics of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Dementia (NEXGENS),37-42 the National Institute on Aging’s Late Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Family Study (NIA-LOAD),5,26 the National Institute of Mental Health Genetics Initiative AD Cohort (NIMH),24 the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer Disease Research Center (PITT ADRC),43,44 and the MRC genetic resource for Late-onset AD included in the Genetic and Environmental Risk in AD Consortium (UK-Cardiff).27,31,45 For additional detail of each source program’s clinical assessment methodology and demographics, see Supplementary Material. Collection of clinical data and genetic samples were approved by each source program’s local Institutional Review Board or Medical Ethics Committee, as appropriate.
Characterization of Psychosis
Subjects were characterized for the presence or absence of delusions and hallucinations within the individual source programs (including their sub-studies) using the CERAD behavioral rating scale46 (PITT ADRC and NIA-LOAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q,47 NIA-LOAD, ADC, NEXGENS), NPI-Q Spanish Language Version48 (ACE/GR@ACE), NPI49 (UK-Cardiff, NEXGENS, LILLY), and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale50 (NIMH). Each of these instruments has established reliability in AD,5,51 and we have previously used all successfully in analyses of psychosis in AD subjects.4,5,7,23,43 Details of the application of these instruments for each source program are provided in the Supplementary Methods. AD+P was defined by the presence of persistent hallucinations or delusions throughout the course of dementia, AD-P was defined by the absence of all symptoms at all assessments. However, because psychotic symptoms typically emerge in the transition from mild to moderate stages of AD5, individuals without psychosis, but who were still in the early stages of disease at their last assessment (CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument52 score < 1, mini-mental state examination score53 > 20), were considered to be at substantial risk of developing AD+P later in their course. Thus, these individuals were excluded from the analysis. We have used these approaches to characterizing and defining AD+P and AD-P in multiple studies demonstrating the heritability and association with genetic variation of the AD+P phenotype.5,23,24,26-28,54
Genotypes
Six of the eight program sources provided us with either blood (ACE/GR@ACE) or DNA samples (PITT ADRC, UK-Cardiff, NIA-LOAD, ADC, NIMH), all of which were processed by the Genomics Core Lab at the University of Pittsburgh. Genomic DNA was extracted from whole blood samples using the Qiamp Blood Mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). All DNA was quantitated by Pico Green (Thermo Fisher, Pittsburgh, PA) and diluted to a DNA concentration of 23ng/μl. Samples without the required amount of DNA were plated for whole genome amplification (WGA) and re-quantified. The above samples were genotyped at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHoP, Philadelphia, PA) using Illumina’s Global Screening Array (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Prior to genotyping, ChoP confirmed DNA concentrations by Pico Green assay, and performed additional WGA on samples when necessary.
In addition to the above-mentioned blood and DNA samples, ACE/GR@ACE, LILLY, and NIA-LOAD provided us with single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data. For the ADC, SNP array data was provided by the Alzheimer’s Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC). NEXGENS provided genome-wide association (GWA) statistics for the comparison of AD-P and AD+P. Additional details of the generation of SNP array data for all programs can be found in the Supplementary Material.
Analysis
Overview of statistical analyses: Data from the eight program sources were processed as four cohorts (Phase 1, Phase 2, GR@ACE, and NEXGENS), based on timing of receipt of the data. Data processing, QC, and statistical analyses were uniform across three of the cohorts for which there were genotypes (Phase 1, Phase 2, GR@ACE), whereas only summary statistics were available for the fourth cohort (NEXGENS). All cohorts were analyzed separately for GWA, then statistics per SNP from these analyses were combined by meta-analysis using METAL.55 Below we describe quality control procedures for the three genotyped cohorts and an overview of other methods. For more detail see the Supplementary Material. Additional details for the NEXGENS cohort have also been described previously.56 Methods were implemented within Plink57,58 unless otherwise noted.
Quality Control (QC): QC was completed by both genotype and by sample from Phase 1, Phase 2, and GR@ACE. For QC by genotype, SNPs were removed if they had an unknown location, were monomorphic, were duplicated, did not map to an autosome or X-linked chromosome, had a non-call rate > 0.025, had a minor allele frequency MAF < 0.01, or had an exact Hardy-Weinberg p-value< 0.005 in the major European ancestry group, as defined below. For QC by sample, samples were removed if their overall SNP non-call rates > 0.025, if they showed extreme homo-or heterozygosity (<-.15 or > 0.4, respectively), if their nominal versus inferred genetic sex did not match, or if they were determined to be duplicates of other samples within or between cohorts. Raw genotype data for individual NEXGEN cohorts underwent appropriate QC steps (implemented in PLINK).56 After QC, 6,872 AD-P and 5,445 AD+P subjects, distributed across the four cohorts, remained for analysis (Table 1B).
Ancestry: We determined ancestry using GemTools analysis59 of a subset of autosomal SNPs with non-call rate < 0.001 and MAF > 0.05 for Phase 1, Phase 2, and GR@ACE. These SNPs were pruned such that, within a 50 SNP block and a 5 SNP step-size, the linkage disequilibrium r2 < 0.01. For each of the four cohorts, a different subset of SNPs was chosen for ancestry analysis, and the resulting ancestry plots were used to identify the samples in the major European ancestry cluster. Analysis of NEXGENS was restricted to individuals of European ancestry using genetic principal components computed by EIGENSTRAT.60
Imputation: Genotypes were imputed using the Sanger Imputation Server,61 the 1000 Genomes Phase3 reference panel,62 and EAGLE2 for pre-phasing63 for Phase 1, Phase 2, and GR@ACE. Before imputation, the genotypes were harmonized using the perl script HRC-1000G-check-bim-v4.2.5.pl. This resulted in 85,057,462 imputed or genotyped SNPs for each sample. QC of the imputed SNPs included the requirement that the INFO score for a SNP in each data set > 0.81; MAF > 0.01; and, among all European ancestry subpopulations defined by GemTools, Fst < 0.005. For NexGENS Phasing and imputation was done via the Sanger Imputation Service using the Haplotype Reference Consortium (r1.1) reference panel on all cohorts. After imputation only SNPs with an imputation quality (INFO) score > 0.4 and MAF > 0.05 were retained.
Association: Separate GWA analyses were performed for the Phase 1, Phase 2, and GR@ACE cohorts, to contrast AD+P versus AD-P for the 9,200,578 SNPs using the Plink option --logistic and with adjustment for the three ancestry dimensions (Supplementary Figures 3-5). For chromosome X, an additional covariate for sex was included. For NEXGENS, separate logistic regressions, implemented in PLINK for each of the 5 NEXGENS consortium datasets (Tables S6.1-S6.5), was used to contrast AD+P versus AD-P for each SNP, with adjustment for the first 10 ancestry principal components. METAL software was used to conduct inverse-variance weighted fixed effects meta-analysis across the 5 NEXGENS datasets, applying genomic control,55 to generate the summary statistics used in the current analysis. The four GWAS statistics (Phase 1, Phase 2, GR@ACE, NEXGENS summary), per SNP, were then meta-analyzed using METAL.
SNP-based estimates of AD+P heritability and genetic correlations: Heritability of AD+P using GenomicSEM was estimated from 1,126,265 summary statistics from our METAL analysis. Of the 7,105,229 SNPs used for GWAS, 1,126,265 matched to those available on the GenomicSEM website. Also, using genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA),64 heritability was estimated from 9,031 samples of European ancestry drawn from the Phase 1, Phase 2, and GR@ACE cohorts for which individual genotypes were available (Table 1B). Two eigenvectors were used to control for ancestry, 997,105 SNPs were included in the analysis.
Individuals of European ancestry from all four cohorts were used to estimate genetic correlations using LD Score65 and LD HUB (version 1.9.3).66 We selected phenotypes for analysis based on prior studies showing correlations with psychosis in AD (years of schooling, depressive symptoms) or genetic association with AD+P (schizophrenia), or because they are closely related with the above four phenotypes. Specifically, we included intelligence, which is genetically correlated with years of schooling, bipolar disorder which is strongly genetically correlated with both depressive symptoms and schizophrenia. Finally, we included AD as it is a necessary condition of AD±P, and two other neurodegenerative diseases, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease, each of which is associated with a neuropathology that may contribute to psychosis risk in AD.
Results
A total of 12,317 subjects, 6,872 AD-P and 5,445 AD+P, were included in this GWAS analysis (Table 1A). Contrasting AD-P to AD+P genotypes across the genome revealed two significant loci (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1). One locus was at 4q24, mapping to an intron of ENPP6 (best SNP rs9994623, O.R. (95%CI) 1.16 (1.10, 1.22), p=1.26×10-8). The other locus was at 3p26.1 (best SNP rs201109606, O.R. 0.65 (0.56-0.76), p=3.24×10-8). This locus spans the 3’ untranslated region (3’-UTR) of an alternatively spliced variant of SUMF1 (SUMF1-204 ENST00000448413.5). None of the SNPs showing significant association in these loci are annotated as expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) in GTEx. Behavior of the association statistics, as assessed by probability-probability plot (Supplementary Figure 1), is consistent with the expectation for such analyses, and the genomic control estimate,67 GC=1.03, shows no evidence for confounding by ancestry.
While earlier studies the AD+P phenotype have shown strong clustering in families and substantial heritability, SNP-based heritability has not been estimated. We estimated it in two ways. First, by analyzing our GWAS statistics using GenomicSEM, SNP-based heritability was estimated at 0.181 ± 0.064 (Chi-square = 8.0, df=1, p =.005). An alternative approach, using the GCTA software, evaluated genotypes genome-wide to determine relationships among the samples and how they partitioned within and between AD+P and AD-P sets. This estimate was 0.312 ± 0.053 (Chi-square = 34.98, df=1, p = 3.3 x 10-9). The larger estimate probably arises due to greater information contained in estimated genetic relationships, relative to our modestly powered GWAS, although the heritability estimates are not significantly different. The GCTA analysis focused on subjects of European ancestry, genetically determined, to avoid confounding of ancestry.
Subjects of European ancestry were also used to estimate genetic correlations of AD+P with select phenotypes available from LD HUB (Table 2). Consistent with clinical observations, AD+P is significantly genetically correlated with “Years of Schooling” (and nearly so with the related phenotype, “Intelligence”) and with “Depressive Symptoms”. In contrast, AD+P was not significantly genetically correlated with AD (Table 2). In fact, only 7 SNPs with p value <10-4 for association with psychosis in AD, all in chr19:44885243-44908684 (hg38), occur in one of the 25 loci significantly associated with AD.68 Nor was AD+P significantly genetically correlated with the two other neurodegenerative disorders evaluated, ALS and Parkinson disease (Table 2).
We previously found a significant relationship between risk for AD+P and schizophrenia.28 Specifically, we genotyped 94 of 128 SNPs that showed genome-wide-significance for association with schizophrenia in a sample of AD+P subjects. We constructed a predictive score for schizophrenia risk from these SNPs, then assessed whether this score predicted AD+P status in the AD sample. There was a significant negative correlation between the risk score for schizophrenia and AD+P status, which we then replicated by genotyping 60 of the 94 risk SNPs in an independent sample. Now, using SNPs from across the genome and a larger set of AD subjects, results from LD HUB show a negative, but non-significant, genetic correlation with schizophrenia, while showing a negative and significant genetic correlation with bipolar disorder (Table 2). In fact, no SNP with p value <10-4 for association with psychosis in AD had a p value <10-5 in the 108 loci associated with schizophrenia.69
Because bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are genetically correlated, we next asked if our original result for the 94 SNPs could be explained by an overlap of risk SNPs for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. To do so, we tested whether the odds ratios for association of these SNPs for these disorders69,70 were independent. They were not (Supplementary Figure 2), 91 of 94 SNPs had odds ratios exceeding one for both disorders, whereas 47 were expected under independence (sign test, p = 5.8 x 10-20).
Discussion
We identified evidence of genome-wide significant association with psychosis risk in AD at SNPs within ENPP6 and in the 3’-UTR of an alternatively spliced transcript of SUMF1. Exploration of multiple data sets did not reveal any current evidence linking the SNPs at these loci to variation in expression of ENPP6, SUMF1, or other genes. Similarly, although the alternatively spliced SUMF1-204 transcript is expressed in brain,71 AD+P risk SNPs in the SUMF1 locus were not associated with brain expression of SUMF1-204 (S. Sieberts, Personal Communication). Nor were SNPs at these loci linked to other potential genetic mechanisms, such as variation in epigenetic modifications. However, we note that for SUMF1, the locus is located in the 3’-UTR, a region that often serves a substantial role in regulating protein levels via post-transcriptional mechanisms.72
ENPP6 encodes a glycerophosphodiesterase that is highly expressed in new oligodendrocytes as they differentiate from their precursors.73 Recent data in mice have demonstrated that differentiation of oligodendrocytes from their precursors (as indicated by increased ENPP6 mRNA expression) is a necessary component of early,74 i.e. synaptic,75 phases of new (motor) learning. ENPP6 protein can be expressed both on the myelin membrane and as a soluble form that is found extracellularly.76,77 ENPP6 acts as a hydrolase that severs choline from substrates, including lysophosphatidylcholine, glycerophosphorylcholine, and sphingosylphosphorylcholine.77 Of these, it has highest catalytic efficiency towards sphingosylphosphorylcholine,76 releasing both sphingosine and phosphocholine. Sphingosine is phosphorylated to generate sphingosine-1-phosphate, which signals via the g-protein-coupled sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR1). It is of some interest, therefore, that the S1PR1 modulator, fingolimod,78 has been previously shown to increase excitatory synaptic transmission79 and improve psychosis-associated behaviors in a genetic animal model of - amyloid overproduction.80
The locus on chromosome 3 maps to introns spanning the 3’-UTR of an alternatively spliced transcript of SUMF1. SUMF1 encodes formylglycine-generating enzyme, which serves as a master activator of lysosomal sulfatases by converting conserved cysteines to formylglycine in their active sites. As a consequence, genetic disruption of SUMF1 leads to a multiple sulfatase deficiency syndrome.81,82 Importantly, the transcript of SUMF1 (SUMF1-204, ENST00000448413.5) within which our locus is located encodes an isoform of formylglycine-generating enzyme (isoform 3, Uniprot Accession Q8NBK3-3) lacking the enzymatically active Cys341 residue.83 The functional consequences of this change are not established, but would be anticipated to reduce or eliminate the primary enzymatic function. The function of the novel sequence that replaces the c-terminal of formylglycine-generating enzyme in isoform 3 is also not known, and BLAST of this sequence against the UNIPROT database does not identify homologous proteins. Nevertheless, speaking to the potential functional impact in AD+P, ENST00000448413.5 is detectable in cerebral cortex.71
Recently, an appreciation of how lysosomal storage dysfunction also leads to impaired autophagy has emerged.84 It is thus not surprising, therefore, that selective depletion of SUMF1 in either astrocytes or neurons results in neurodegeneration.85 How alterations in function of formylglycine-generating enzyme due to a potential change in levels of isoform 3 may modify the course of AD through these mechanisms and thus result in the AD+P phenotype remains speculative. We have previously shown, however, that preservation of synaptic protein levels in the context of AD neuropathology is associated with reduced psychosis risk.80 Thus, genetic alterations that impact degradation of synaptic proteins by the lysosome to autophagosome pathway are likely to influence risk of psychosis.
We and others34 have previously evaluated the association of psychosis in AD with APOE*4. Although earlier, smaller studies had yielded inconsistent results, our larger study found no association.34 Inconsistencies of earlier studies do not appear to arise from linked variation in TOMM40.86 Our current findings shed further light on these prior observations. SNPs spanning the APOE/TOMM40 locus that show some evidence of association with AD+P (Supplementary Table 1) serve as eQTLs for BLOC1S3,87 a component of the BLOC-1 endosomal/lysosomal complex.88 BLOC-1 complexes have a diverse array of functions in intracellular trafficking required for maintenance of multiple pre- and post-synaptic proteins and of synaptic structural integrity.89 Thus altered expression of BLOC1S3, like SUMF1, may contribute to synaptic vulnerability in AD+P.
Of interest, we found some evidence for association of AD+P with rs11701 (Supplementary Table 1, 4.0 x 10-6). rs11701 is located on chromosome 14, within two genes, ANG and RNASE4, which share promoters and some 5’ exons, although each gene is spliced to a unique downstream exon containing its complete coding region. rs11701 is a synonymous coding variant in ANG, is intronic in RNASE4, and its protein products are members of the RNAse A Superfamily. Loss-of-function mutations in both ANG and RNASE4 have been associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/frontotemporal dementia (ALS/FTD) syndromes.90-95 ANG preferentially hydrolyzes transfer RNA (tRNA) in vivo.96 Understanding of how tRNA-derived fragments generated by ANG may contribute to neuroprotection is rapidly expanding.97
It would thus be parsimonious to hypothesize that less potent alterations in expression of ANG and RNASE4, or in functions of their protein products, modify neuronal function or survival, which in turn, increases the risk for psychosis in individuals with AD. Several observations are consistent with this hypothesis. For example, rs11701 has been linked to expression levels for both genes in some tissues.98 While it is not known if mutations in ANG or RNASE4 are present in AD+P, some of these mutations result in tar DNA binding protein 43 (TDP43) inclusion pathology on postmortem exam in ALS/FTD patients.99 We have previously reported that the presence of comorbid TDP43 pathology in AD is independently associated with psychosis risk.100
We previously identified, and independently replicated, an inverse association between polygenic risk for schizophrenia, defined by a limited set of schizophrenia risk SNPs69, and risk for psychosis in AD.28 It was thus somewhat surprising that we saw a non-significant genetic correlation between these two disorders when considering both a larger set of SNPs and a substantially enlarged cohort of AD subjects with and without psychosis. Instead, we identified a negative genetic correlation with risk for bipolar disorder, a disorder that has substantial genetic overlap with schizophrenia. Because our prior analyses relied on a subset of SNPs significantly associated with risk for schizophrenia, and this set also shows enrichment for affecting risk for bipolar disorder (Supplementary Figure 2), this overlap probably explains the discrepancy we now observe between our earlier results and the current results for genetic correlations. In contrast, we observed a positive genetic correlation between risk for depressive symptoms and AD+P risk, consistent with clinical observations of co-occurrence of depressive and psychotic symptoms in AD patients,5,13-15 and evidence that antidepressant medications may have some effect in reducing psychotic symptoms in AD.101,102
We also observed a significant negative genetic correlation of educational level with psychosis risk in AD and a similar pattern, but not quite significant relationship with intelligence. Greater cognitive impairment increases the risk for psychosis in AD; moreover, psychosis in AD is further associated with a more rapid rate of cognitive decline2-9 (see also review in103). The current findings extend these earlier observations, by showing genetic overlap with measures that may be better construed as indicative of cognitive reserve, as they reflect early life cognitive attainment. Cognitive reserve has long been recognized as protective against developing a degree of cognitive and functional impairment sufficient to lead to a diagnosis of AD.104 However, somewhat counter-intuitively, once AD is diagnosed, individuals with greater cognitive reserve decline more rapidly.104 Thus, the genetic correlations we observed may point to a biology underlying the presence of greater cognitive impairment in AD, but not the more rapid decline associated with AD+P.
We did not observe any genetic correlation between AD+P risk and risk for AD, ALS, or Parkinson’s disease. The former is not surprising as all our subjects, with or without psychosis, have AD. The lack of genetic overlap with ALS (despite the modest evidence for association of AD+P with ANG/RNASE4), suggest that cases in which a comorbid pathogenic process associated with ALS/FTD contribute to the manifestation of psychosis in AD account for only a small proportion of AD+P. This conclusion is consistent with our prior pathologic observations, in which the presence of TDP-43 pathology predicted only 5% of the variance in risk for AD+P.100 Importantly, the lack of genetic correlation with Parkinson’s disease indicates that our AD+P phenotype did not derive from a phenocopy due to inclusion of subjects with primary alpha-synuclein pathology, which itself is associated with psychosis.105
The above findings are subject to several potential limitations. Although our analysis is the largest GWA study of AD+P to date, it is nevertheless modest in sample size in comparison to studies of related complex traits.68,69 As our heritability results show, a substantial increase in sample size will identify many additional loci as having a significant association with psychosis risk in AD. Similarly, our tests of genetic correlation would be influenced by both the limited power of our study and that of the other phenotype, as well as the degree to which liability to both phenotypes arises from common genetic variation. Finally, we note that we examined the association of genetic variation with a psychosis phenotype defined by the presence of one or more of multiple individual psychotic symptoms. It is possible that relevant subgroups could exist within the AD+P phenotype.106 However, several lines of evidence support the phenotype definition used in the current study. First, our approach mirrors that used to define other psychotic disorders, e.g. schizophrenia. Second, AD+P as defined in the current study demonstrates familial aggregation and heritability.5,23,26 Moreover, the heritability of AD+P is highest when requiring the presence of multiple or recurrent psychotic symptoms.23,26 Nevertheless, it remains possible that any of the loci we report as significantly or suggestively associated with AD+P reflect a selective association with only a subset of psychosis symptoms.
Currently established treatments for psychosis in AD patients are suboptimal, perhaps reflecting in part that these treatments were not derived to prevent or reverse an identified biology of AD+P.103 The development of effective, specific, therapeutic targets will therefore require as a first step delineating this underlying biology. Our study provides the first unbiased evidence of association of specific genetic loci with psychosis in AD and, can thus serve as an initial road map to AD+P biology. These findings, in conjunction with available functional genomic and postmortem data, provide multiple links to mechanisms influencing synaptic function as contributors to psychosis in AD.
Data Availability
Data will be submitted to NIAGADS (https://www.niagads.org) upon acceptance of peer-reviewed manuscript.
http://csg.sph.umich.edu/abecasis/metal/index.html
http://www.compgen.pitt.edu/GemTools/GemTools.htm
https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink2/
https://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/snp/redesign/latest_release/VCF/
http://ldsc.broadinstitute.org/ldhub/
https://imputation.sanger.ac.uk
Author Contributions
Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions:
to the conception or design of the work; RAS, Bernie, Ilyas, Clive, Oscar
to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; MAAD-S, LK, BC, EAW, LM, RS, IH, SM-G, LT, MB, EA-M, SV, YL, BH, DA, GS, SB, AR, IS, HKS, BE, ES, OAA, SD, LA, DS, BB, DA, GF, PM, AS, DDR, AP, GP, JW, RM, TF, AR, CB, OLL, MIK, BD, RAS
to the creation of new software used in the work; YL
have drafted the manuscript or substantively revised it. MAAS-S, LK, BC, LM, CB, MIK, BD, RAS
Each author must have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study) AND to have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.
Conflicts of Interest
Yushi Liu and Basavaraj Hooli are currently employed by and holding stock in Eli Lilly and Company
Dr. Ballard reports grants and personal fees from Acadia pharmaceutical company, grants and personal fees from Lundbeck, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Otsuka, personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Novo Nordisk, personal fees from AARP, grants and personal fees from Synexus, personal fees from Exciva, outside the submitted work.
Oscar Lopez served as a consultant for Grifols, Inc.
Dr Saltvedt has been investigator in the drug trial Boehringer-Ingelheim 1346.0023
Ole A. Andreassen: Consultant to HEALTHLYTIX, speaker honoraria from Lundbeck.
URLs
METAL http://csg.sph.umich.edu/abecasis/metal/index.html
GemTools http://www.compgen.pitt.edu/GemTools/GemTools.htm
PLINK https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink2/
NCBI RS names https://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/snp/redesign/latest_release/VCF/
LD-Hub: http://ldsc.broadinstitute.org/ldhub/
Sanger Imputation Service: https://imputation.sanger.ac.uk
Psychiatric Genetics Consortium: https://www.med.unc.edu/pgc/
Imputation preparation: https://www.well.ox.ac.uk/~wravner/tools/
CMC/AMP-AD eQTL Meta-analysis: https://www.svnapse.org/#lSynapse:synl6984815
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the following federal grants: AG027224 (RAS), MH116046 (RAS), MH057881 (BD), AG030653 (MIK), AG041718 (MIK), AG066468 (OLL)
A complete acknowledgements list of contributing individuals, consortia, and their grant support can be found in Supplementary Material.