Citations

AbstractBackgroundIt is important to determine the natural history of sporadic and familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and generate clinical, neuropsychological, neuroimaging and biofluid data for planning disease‐modifying trials.MethodAs part of the ARTFL LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD; U19 AG063911) protocol, investigators at 19 centers in North America will enroll 2100 participants with FTLD over the next 5 years beginning in early 2020.ResultAs of 1/20/20, the ARTFL/LEFFTDS (A/L) Consortium had enrolled 1832 participants, including 850 in kindreds with familial FTLD (239 associated with mutations in MAPT, 192 in GRN, 370 in C9orf72, 4 with mutations in both GRN and C9orf72, and 45 with a mutation in a different gene or no mutation in any known FTLD‐associated gene). Over 500 participants have undergone 2 or more annual visits to date. MRI has been performed in 1105. Biofluid samples have also been collected, with blood (DNA, plasma, serum, mRNA, PBMC) in 1413 and CSF in 303. Over 60 manuscripts using A/L data or samples have been published to date. Five clinical trials involving A/L and ALLFTD participants are in progress or planned. The longitudinal arm in ALLFTD will enroll 500 of existing A/L and 600 future participants for annual assessments with similar methodology to A/L. An additional 1000 FTLD patients will undergo focused one‐time clinical evaluations and biofluid collection.ConclusionThe data/samples from already‐enrolled and planned participants in ALLFTD and findings published to date underscore the utility of evaluating FTLD subjects. The absence of identifiable mutations in some with familial FTLD suggests that other genes are yet to be discovered. ALLFTD data will inform clinical trial design, and many participants will be eligible for future trials. The key data and samples in ALLFTD are available to interested investigators worldwide. Supported by: AG063911, AG045390, NS092089, AG016976, AG21886.

Abstract Background: Genetic studies have shifted to sequencing-based rare variants discovery after decades of success in identifying common disease variants by Genome-Wide Association Studies using Single Nucleotide Polymorphism chips. Sequencing-based studies require large sample sizes for statistical power but often inadvertently introduce batch effects because samples are typically collected, processed, and sequenced at multiple centers. Conventionally, batch effects are first detected and visualized using Principal Components Analysis and then controlled by including batch covariates in the disease association models. For sequencing-based genetic studies, because all variants included in the association analyses have passed quality control measures, this conventional approach treats every variant as equal and ignores the substantial differences still remaining in variant qualities and characteristics such as genotype quality scores, alternative allele fractions (fraction of reads supporting alternative allele at a variant position) and sequencing depths. Results: In the Alzheimer’s Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) exome dataset of 9,904 cases and controls, we discovered hidden variant-level differences between sample batches of three sequencing centers and two exome capture kits. Although sequencing centers were included as a covariate in our association models, we observed differences at the variant level in genotype quality and alternative allele fraction between samples processed by different exome capture kits that significantly impacted both the confidence of variant detection and the identification of disease-associated variants. Furthermore, we found that the association signals of a subset of top disease risk variants came exclusively from samples processed by one exome capture kit that was more effective at capturing the alternative alleles compared to the other kit. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of additional variant-level quality control for large sequencing-based genetic studies. More importantly, we demonstrate that automatically filtering out variants with batch differences may lead to false negatives if the batch discordance came largely from quality differences and if the variants from one batch had better quality scores.

Abstract Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have become an increasingly popular approach for demonstrating polygenic influences on complex traits and for establishing common polygenic signals between different traits. PRSs are typically constructed using pruning and thresholding (P+T), but the best choice of parameters is uncertain; thus multiple settings are used and the best is chosen. Optimization can lead to inflated Type I error. Permutation procedures can correct this, but they can be computationally intensive. Alternatively, a single parameter setting can be chosen a priori for the PRS, but choosing suboptimal settings results in loss of power. We propose computing PRSs under a range of parameter settings, performing principal component analysis (PCA) on the resulting set of PRSs, and using the first PRS–PC in association tests. The first PC reweights the variants included in the PRS to achieve maximum variation over all PRS settings used. Using simulations and a real data application to study PRS association with bipolar disorder and psychosis in bipolar disorder, we compare the performance of the proposed PRS–PCA approach with a permutation test and an a priori selected p ‐value threshold. The PRS–PCA approach is simple to implement, outperforms the other strategies in most scenarios, and provides an unbiased estimate of prediction performance.

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use as mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder (BD), but not all BD patients respond to these AED mood stabilizers (AED‐MSs). To identify genetic polymorphisms that contribute to the variability in AED‐MS response, we performed a discovery genome‐wide association study (GWAS) of 199 BD patients from the Mayo Clinic Bipolar Disorder Biobank. Most of these patients had been treated with the AED‐MS valproate/divalproex and/or lamotrigine. AED‐MS response was assessed using the Alda scale, which quantifies clinical improvement while accounting for potential confounding factors. We identified two genome‐wide significant single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) signals that mapped to the THSD7A (rs78835388, P = 7.1E‐09) and SLC35F3 (rs114872993, P = 3.2E‐08) genes. We also identified two genes with statistically significant gene‐level associations: ABCC1 (P = 6.7E‐07; top SNP rs875740, P = 2.0E‐6), and DISP1 (P = 8.9E‐07; top SNP rs34701716, P = 8.9E‐07). THSD7A SNPs were previously found to be associated with risk for several psychiatric disorders, including BD. Both THSD7A and SLC35F3 are expressed in excitatory/glutamatergic and inhibitory/γ‐aminobutyric acidergic (GABAergic) neurons, which are targets of AED‐MSs. ABCC1 is involved in the transport of valproate and lamotrigine metabolites, and the SNPs in ABCC1 and DISP1 with the strongest evidence of association in our GWAS are strong splicing quantitative trait loci in the human gut, suggesting a possible influence on drug absorption. In conclusion, our pharmacogenomic study identified novel genetic loci that appear to contribute to AED‐MS treatment response, and may facilitate precision medicine in BD.

AbstractIntroductionMAPT H1 haplotype is implicated as a risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsUsing Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC) genome‐wide association study (GWAS) data (n = 18,841), we conducted a MAPT H1/H2 haplotype–stratified association to discover MAPT haplotype–specific AD risk loci.ResultsWe identified 11 loci—5 in H2‐non‐carriers and 6 in H2‐carriers—although none of the MAPT haplotype–specific associations achieved genome‐wide significance. The most significant H2 non‐carrier–specific association was with a NECTIN2 intronic (P = 1.33E‐07) variant, and that for H2 carriers was near NKX6‐1 (P = 1.99E‐06). The GABRG2 locus had the strongest epistasis with MAPT H1/H2 variant rs8070723 (P = 3.91E‐06). Eight of the 12 genes at these loci had transcriptome‐wide significant differential expression in AD versus control temporal cortex (q < 0.05). Six genes were members of the brain transcriptional co‐expression network implicated in “synaptic transmission” (P = 9.85E‐59), which is also enriched for neuronal genes (P = 1.0E‐164), including MAPT.DiscussionThis stratified GWAS identified loci that may confer AD risk in a MAPT haplotype–specific manner. This approach may preferentially enrich for neuronal genes implicated in synaptic transmission.

Objective Our aim was to evaluate the relationship between evening chronotype, a proxy marker of circadian system dysfunction, and disordered eating behavior and poor dietary habits in individuals with bipolar disorder (BD). Methods In this cross‐sectional study, we evaluated 783 adults with BD. Chronotype was determined using item 5 from the reduced Morningness‐Eveningness Questionnaire. The Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS) and the Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants—Shortened Version (REAP‐S) were used to assess disordered eating behavior and dietary habits respectively. General linear models and logistic regression models were utilized to evaluate differences between chronotype groups. Results Two hundred and eight (27%) BD participants self‐identified as having evening chronotypes. Compared to non‐evening types, evening types were younger ( P < 0.01) and, after controlling for age, had higher mean EDDS composite z‐scores ( P < 0.01); higher rates of binge‐eating (BE) behavior ( P = 0.04), bulimia nervosa ( P < 0.01), and nocturnal eating binges ( P < 0.01); and a higher body mass index ( P = 0.04). Compared to non‐evening types, evening chronotypes had a lower REAP‐S overall score ( P < 0.01) and scored lower on the ‘healthy foods’ and ‘avoidance of unhealthy food’ factors. Evening types also skipped breakfast more often ( P < 0.01), ate less fruit ( P = 0.02) and vegetables ( P = 0.04), and consumed more fried foods ( P < 0.01), unhealthy snacks ( P = 0.02), and soft drinks ( P = 0.01). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the circadian system plays a role in the disordered eating and unhealthy dietary behaviors observed in BD patients. The circadian system may therefore represent a therapeutic target in BD‐associated morbidity that warrants further investigation.

Abstract Eating disorders and substance use disorders frequently co‐occur. Twin studies reveal shared genetic variance between liabilities to eating disorders and substance use, with the strongest associations between symptoms of bulimia nervosa and problem alcohol use (genetic correlation [ r g ], twin‐based = 0.23‐0.53). We estimated the genetic correlation between eating disorder and substance use and disorder phenotypes using data from genome‐wide association studies (GWAS). Four eating disorder phenotypes (anorexia nervosa [AN], AN with binge eating, AN without binge eating, and a bulimia nervosa factor score), and eight substance‐use‐related phenotypes (drinks per week, alcohol use disorder [AUD], smoking initiation, current smoking, cigarettes per day, nicotine dependence, cannabis initiation, and cannabis use disorder) from eight studies were included. Significant genetic correlations were adjusted for variants associated with major depressive disorder and schizophrenia. Total study sample sizes per phenotype ranged from ~2400 to ~537 000 individuals. We used linkage disequilibrium score regression to calculate single nucleotide polymorphism‐based genetic correlations between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes. Significant positive genetic associations emerged between AUD and AN ( r g = 0.18; false discovery rate q = 0.0006), cannabis initiation and AN ( r g = 0.23; q < 0.0001), and cannabis initiation and AN with binge eating ( r g = 0.27; q = 0.0016). Conversely, significant negative genetic correlations were observed between three nondiagnostic smoking phenotypes (smoking initiation, current smoking, and cigarettes per day) and AN without binge eating ( r gs = −0.19 to −0.23; qs < 0.04). The genetic correlation between AUD and AN was no longer significant after co‐varying for major depressive disorder loci. The patterns of association between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes highlights the potentially complex and substance‐specific relationships among these behaviors.

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dopaminergic‐enhancing agent modafinil/armodafinil (MoArm) as adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression. Methods A comprehensive search of major electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjunctive MoArm that included patients with bipolar I (BP‐I) or bipolar II (BP‐II) depression. Data for response/remission and all‐cause discontinuation were analyzed. Effect size was summarized by relative risk (RR) using a random effect model. Results Of 58 studies, five RCTs (N = 795 drug, N = 792 placebo) met inclusion criteria. Four armodafinil studies included only BP‐I patients and one modafinil study included both bipolar subtypes with limited heterogeneity ( I 2 = 34%, P = .19; I 2 = 18%, P = .30). Compared to placebo, augmentation with MoArm was associated with significantly greater rates of treatment response (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.37; P = .03) and remission (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10‐1.73; P = .005). All‐cause discontinuation was not different than placebo (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89‐1.30; P = .45) with no evidence of increased risk of mood switch or suicide attempts with MoArm (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.39‐2.5; P = .98; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.37‐2.85; P = .97). Conclusion This narrower scope meta‐analysis of one drug for one disease suggests that adjunctive MoArm may represent a novel therapeutic intervention. Further studies delineating the subtypes of bipolar depression responsive to these novel dopaminergic‐enhancing agents are encouraged.

We previously reported that testis‐specific Y‐encoded‐like protein (TSPYLs) are transcription regulators for CYP3A4, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19. Here, we observed dual roles for TSPYLs in mediating serotonin transport and the metabolism of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The widely prescribed SSRIs, citalopram, and escitalopram are metabolized mainly by CYP2C19. The TSPYL1 rs3828743 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), which decreases its suppression of CYP2C19 expression, was associated with rapid escitalopram metabolism and worse treatment response in the Mayo PGRN‐AMPS clinical trial. We also found that TSPYLs can regulate expression of the serotonin transporter protein, SLC6A4, and, in turn, serotonin transport into cells. The SNPs in tight linkage disequilibrium with the TSPYL1 rs10223646 SNP were significantly correlated with baseline severity of depression in patients with MDD in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression and International SSRI Pharmacogenomics Consortium clinical trials. Our findings suggest that genetic variation in TSPYL genes may be novel indicators for baseline severity of depression and SSRI poor response.