@article {6815, title = {Association of Alzheimer{\textquoteright}s disease GWAS loci with MRI markers of brain aging.}, journal = {Neurobiol Aging}, volume = {36}, year = {2015}, month = {2015 Apr}, pages = {1765.e7-16}, abstract = {

Whether novel risk variants of Alzheimer{\textquoteright}s disease (AD) identified through genome-wide association studies also influence magnetic resonance imaging-based intermediate phenotypes of AD in the general population is unclear. We studied association of 24 AD risk loci with intracranial volume, total brain volume, hippocampal volume (HV), white matter hyperintensity burden, and brain infarcts in a meta-analysis of genetic association studies from large population-based samples (N = 8175-11,550). In single-SNP based tests, AD risk allele of APOE (rs2075650) was associated with smaller HV (p = 0.0054) and CD33 (rs3865444) with smaller intracranial volume (p = 0.0058). In gene-based tests, there was associations of HLA-DRB1 with total brain volume (p = 0.0006) and BIN1 with HV (p = 0.00089). A weighted AD genetic risk score was associated with smaller HV (beta {\textpm} SE = -0.047 {\textpm} 0.013, p = 0.00041), even after excluding the APOE locus (p = 0.029). However, only association of AD genetic risk score with HV, including APOE, was significant after multiple testing correction (including number of independent phenotypes tested). These results suggest that novel AD genetic risk variants may contribute to structural brain aging in nondemented older community persons.

}, keywords = {Aging, Alleles, Alzheimer Disease, Apolipoproteins E, Brain, Female, Genome-Wide Association Study, Hippocampus, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Organ Size, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Risk, Sialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 3}, issn = {1558-1497}, doi = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.12.028}, author = {Chauhan, Ganesh and Adams, Hieab H H and Bis, Joshua C and Weinstein, Galit and Yu, Lei and T{\"o}glhofer, Anna Maria and Smith, Albert Vernon and van der Lee, Sven J and Gottesman, Rebecca F and Thomson, Russell and Wang, Jing and Yang, Qiong and Niessen, Wiro J and Lopez, Oscar L and Becker, James T and Phan, Thanh G and Beare, Richard J and Arfanakis, Konstantinos and Fleischman, Debra and Vernooij, Meike W and Mazoyer, Bernard and Schmidt, Helena and Srikanth, Velandai and Knopman, David S and Jack, Clifford R and Amouyel, Philippe and Hofman, Albert and DeCarli, Charles and Tzourio, Christophe and van Duijn, Cornelia M and Bennett, David A and Schmidt, Reinhold and Longstreth, William T and Mosley, Thomas H and Fornage, Myriam and Launer, Lenore J and Seshadri, Sudha and Ikram, M Arfan and Debette, Stephanie} } @article {6684, title = {Genome-wide studies of verbal declarative memory in nondemented older people: the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology consortium.}, journal = {Biol Psychiatry}, volume = {77}, year = {2015}, month = {2015 Apr 15}, pages = {749-63}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Memory performance in older persons can reflect genetic influences on cognitive function and dementing processes. We aimed to identify genetic contributions to verbal declarative memory in a community setting.

METHODS: We conducted genome-wide association studies for paragraph or word list delayed recall in 19 cohorts from the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology consortium, comprising 29,076 dementia- and stroke-free individuals of European descent, aged >=45 years. Replication of suggestive associations (p < 5 {\texttimes} 10(-6)) was sought in 10,617 participants of European descent, 3811 African-Americans, and 1561 young adults.

RESULTS: rs4420638, near APOE, was associated with poorer delayed recall performance in discovery (p = 5.57 {\texttimes} 10(-10)) and replication cohorts (p = 5.65 {\texttimes} 10(-8)). This association was stronger for paragraph than word list delayed recall and in the oldest persons. Two associations with specific tests, in subsets of the total sample, reached genome-wide significance in combined analyses of discovery and replication (rs11074779 [HS3ST4], p = 3.11 {\texttimes} 10(-8), and rs6813517 [SPOCK3], p = 2.58 {\texttimes} 10(-8)) near genes involved in immune response. A genetic score combining 58 independent suggestive memory risk variants was associated with increasing Alzheimer disease pathology in 725 autopsy samples. Association of memory risk loci with gene expression in 138 human hippocampus samples showed cis-associations with WDR48 and CLDN5, both related to ubiquitin metabolism.

CONCLUSIONS: This largest study to date exploring the genetics of memory function in ~40,000 older individuals revealed genome-wide associations and suggested an involvement of immune and ubiquitin pathways.

}, keywords = {Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Apolipoproteins E, Claudin-5, Cohort Studies, Female, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genotype, Humans, Male, Memory Disorders, Middle Aged, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Proteins, Proteoglycans, Regression Analysis, Sulfotransferases, Verbal Learning}, issn = {1873-2402}, doi = {10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.08.027}, author = {Debette, Stephanie and Ibrahim Verbaas, Carla A and Bressler, Jan and Schuur, Maaike and Smith, Albert and Bis, Joshua C and Davies, Gail and Wolf, Christiane and Gudnason, Vilmundur and Chibnik, Lori B and Yang, Qiong and DeStefano, Anita L and de Quervain, Dominique J F and Srikanth, Velandai and Lahti, Jari and Grabe, Hans J and Smith, Jennifer A and Priebe, Lutz and Yu, Lei and Karbalai, Nazanin and Hayward, Caroline and Wilson, James F and Campbell, Harry and Petrovic, Katja and Fornage, Myriam and Chauhan, Ganesh and Yeo, Robin and Boxall, Ruth and Becker, James and Stegle, Oliver and Mather, Karen A and Chouraki, Vincent and Sun, Qi and Rose, Lynda M and Resnick, Susan and Oldmeadow, Christopher and Kirin, Mirna and Wright, Alan F and Jonsdottir, Maria K and Au, Rhoda and Becker, Albert and Amin, Najaf and Nalls, Mike A and Turner, Stephen T and Kardia, Sharon L R and Oostra, Ben and Windham, Gwen and Coker, Laura H and Zhao, Wei and Knopman, David S and Heiss, Gerardo and Griswold, Michael E and Gottesman, Rebecca F and Vitart, Veronique and Hastie, Nicholas D and Zgaga, Lina and Rudan, Igor and Polasek, Ozren and Holliday, Elizabeth G and Schofield, Peter and Choi, Seung Hoan and Tanaka, Toshiko and An, Yang and Perry, Rodney T and Kennedy, Richard E and Sale, Mich{\`e}le M and Wang, Jing and Wadley, Virginia G and Liewald, David C and Ridker, Paul M and Gow, Alan J and Pattie, Alison and Starr, John M and Porteous, David and Liu, Xuan and Thomson, Russell and Armstrong, Nicola J and Eiriksdottir, Gudny and Assareh, Arezoo A and Kochan, Nicole A and Widen, Elisabeth and Palotie, Aarno and Hsieh, Yi-Chen and Eriksson, Johan G and Vogler, Christian and van Swieten, John C and Shulman, Joshua M and Beiser, Alexa and Rotter, Jerome and Schmidt, Carsten O and Hoffmann, Wolfgang and N{\"o}then, Markus M and Ferrucci, Luigi and Attia, John and Uitterlinden, Andr{\'e} G and Amouyel, Philippe and Dartigues, Jean-Fran{\c c}ois and Amieva, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne and R{\"a}ikk{\"o}nen, Katri and Garcia, Melissa and Wolf, Philip A and Hofman, Albert and Longstreth, W T and Psaty, Bruce M and Boerwinkle, Eric and DeJager, Philip L and Sachdev, Perminder S and Schmidt, Reinhold and Breteler, Monique M B and Teumer, Alexander and Lopez, Oscar L and Cichon, Sven and Chasman, Daniel I and Grodstein, Francine and M{\"u}ller-Myhsok, Bertram and Tzourio, Christophe and Papassotiropoulos, Andreas and Bennett, David A and Ikram, M Arfan and Deary, Ian J and van Duijn, Cornelia M and Launer, Lenore and Fitzpatrick, Annette L and Seshadri, Sudha and Mosley, Thomas H} } @article {6861, title = {White Matter Lesion Progression: Genome-Wide Search for Genetic Influences.}, journal = {Stroke}, volume = {46}, year = {2015}, month = {2015 Nov}, pages = {3048-57}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: White matter lesion (WML) progression on magnetic resonance imaging is related to cognitive decline and stroke, but its determinants besides baseline WML burden are largely unknown. Here, we estimated heritability of WML progression, and sought common genetic variants associated with WML progression in elderly participants from the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) consortium.

METHODS: Heritability of WML progression was calculated in the Framingham Heart Study. The genome-wide association study included 7773 elderly participants from 10 cohorts. To assess the relative contribution of genetic factors to progression of WML, we compared in 7 cohorts risk models including demographics, vascular risk factors plus single-nucleotide polymorphisms that have been shown to be associated cross-sectionally with WML in the current and previous association studies.

RESULTS: A total of 1085 subjects showed WML progression. The heritability estimate for WML progression was low at 6.5\%, and no single-nucleotide polymorphisms achieved genome-wide significance (P<5{\texttimes}10(-8)). Four loci were suggestive (P<1{\texttimes}10(-5)) of an association with WML progression: 10q24.32 (rs10883817, P=1.46{\texttimes}10(-6)); 12q13.13 (rs4761974, P=8.71{\texttimes}10(-7)); 20p12.1 (rs6135309, P=3.69{\texttimes}10(-6)); and 4p15.31 (rs7664442, P=2.26{\texttimes}10(-6)). Variants that have been previously related to WML explained only 0.8\% to 11.7\% more of the variance in WML progression than age, vascular risk factors, and baseline WML burden.

CONCLUSIONS: Common genetic factors contribute little to the progression of age-related WML in middle-aged and older adults. Future research on determinants of WML progression should focus more on environmental, lifestyle, or host-related biological factors.

}, keywords = {Adult, Aged, Cohort Studies, Disease Progression, Female, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genome-Wide Association Study, Humans, Leukoencephalopathies, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, White Matter}, issn = {1524-4628}, doi = {10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009252}, author = {Hofer, Edith and Cavalieri, Margherita and Bis, Joshua C and DeCarli, Charles and Fornage, Myriam and Sigurdsson, Sigurdur and Srikanth, Velandai and Trompet, Stella and Verhaaren, Benjamin F J and Wolf, Christiane and Yang, Qiong and Adams, Hieab H H and Amouyel, Philippe and Beiser, Alexa and Buckley, Brendan M and Callisaya, Michele and Chauhan, Ganesh and de Craen, Anton J M and Dufouil, Carole and van Duijn, Cornelia M and Ford, Ian and Freudenberger, Paul and Gottesman, Rebecca F and Gudnason, Vilmundur and Heiss, Gerardo and Hofman, Albert and Lumley, Thomas and Martinez, Oliver and Mazoyer, Bernard and Moran, Chris and Niessen, Wiro J and Phan, Thanh and Psaty, Bruce M and Satizabal, Claudia L and Sattar, Naveed and Schilling, Sabrina and Shibata, Dean K and Slagboom, P Eline and Smith, Albert and Stott, David J and Taylor, Kent D and Thomson, Russell and T{\"o}glhofer, Anna M and Tzourio, Christophe and van Buchem, Mark and Wang, Jing and Westendorp, Rudi G J and Windham, B Gwen and Vernooij, Meike W and Zijdenbos, Alex and Beare, Richard and Debette, Stephanie and Ikram, M Arfan and Jukema, J Wouter and Launer, Lenore J and Longstreth, W T and Mosley, Thomas H and Seshadri, Sudha and Schmidt, Helena and Schmidt, Reinhold} } @article {7142, title = {GWAS analysis of handgrip and lower body strength in older adults in the CHARGE consortium.}, journal = {Aging Cell}, volume = {15}, year = {2016}, month = {2016 Oct}, pages = {792-800}, abstract = {

Decline in muscle strength with aging is an important predictor of health trajectory in the elderly. Several factors, including genetics, are proposed contributors to variability in muscle strength. To identify genetic contributors to muscle strength, a meta-analysis of genomewide association studies of handgrip was conducted. Grip strength was measured using a handheld dynamometer in 27~581 individuals of European descent over 65~years of age from 14 cohort studies. Genomewide association analysis was conducted on ~2.7 million imputed and genotyped variants (SNPs). Replication of the most significant findings was conducted using data from 6393 individuals from three cohorts. GWAS of lower body strength was also characterized in a subset of cohorts. Two genomewide significant (P-value< 5~{\texttimes}~10(-8) ) and 39 suggestive (P-value< 5~{\texttimes}~10(-5) ) associations were observed from meta-analysis of the discovery cohorts. After meta-analysis with replication cohorts, genomewide significant association was observed for rs752045 on chromosome 8 (β~=~0.47, SE~=~0.08, P-value~=~5.20~{\texttimes}~10(-10) ). This SNP is mapped to an intergenic region and is located within an accessible chromatin region (DNase hypersensitivity site) in skeletal muscle myotubes differentiated from the human skeletal muscle myoblasts cell line. This locus alters a binding motif of the CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein-β (CEBPB) that is implicated in muscle repair mechanisms. GWAS of lower body strength did not yield significant results. A common genetic variant in a chromosomal region that regulates myotube differentiation and muscle repair may contribute to variability in grip strength in the elderly. Further studies are needed to uncover the mechanisms that link this genetic variant with muscle strength.

}, issn = {1474-9726}, doi = {10.1111/acel.12468}, author = {Matteini, Amy M and Tanaka, Toshiko and Karasik, David and Atzmon, Gil and Chou, Wen-Chi and Eicher, John D and Johnson, Andrew D and Arnold, Alice M and Callisaya, Michele L and Davies, Gail and Evans, Daniel S and Holtfreter, Birte and Lohman, Kurt and Lunetta, Kathryn L and Mangino, Massimo and Smith, Albert V and Smith, Jennifer A and Teumer, Alexander and Yu, Lei and Arking, Dan E and Buchman, Aron S and Chibinik, Lori B and De Jager, Philip L and Evans, Denis A and Faul, Jessica D and Garcia, Melissa E and Gillham-Nasenya, Irina and Gudnason, Vilmundur and Hofman, Albert and Hsu, Yi-Hsiang and Ittermann, Till and Lahousse, Lies and Liewald, David C and Liu, Yongmei and Lopez, Lorna and Rivadeneira, Fernando and Rotter, Jerome I and Siggeirsdottir, Kristin and Starr, John M and Thomson, Russell and Tranah, Gregory J and Uitterlinden, Andr{\'e} G and V{\"o}lker, Uwe and V{\"o}lzke, Henry and Weir, David R and Yaffe, Kristine and Zhao, Wei and Zhuang, Wei Vivian and Zmuda, Joseph M and Bennett, David A and Cummings, Steven R and Deary, Ian J and Ferrucci, Luigi and Harris, Tamara B and Kardia, Sharon L R and Kocher, Thomas and Kritchevsky, Stephen B and Psaty, Bruce M and Seshadri, Sudha and Spector, Timothy D and Srikanth, Velandai K and Windham, B Gwen and Zillikens, M Carola and Newman, Anne B and Walston, Jeremy D and Kiel, Douglas P and Murabito, Joanne M} } @article {7340, title = {The complex genetics of gait speed: genome-wide meta-analysis approach.}, journal = {Aging (Albany NY)}, volume = {9}, year = {2017}, month = {2017 Jan 10}, pages = {209-246}, abstract = {

Emerging evidence suggests that the basis for variation in late-life mobility is attributable, in part, to genetic factors, which may become increasingly important with age. Our objective was to systematically assess the contribution of genetic variation to gait speed in older individuals. We conducted a meta-analysis of gait speed GWASs in 31,478 older adults from 17 cohorts of the CHARGE consortium, and validated our results in 2,588 older adults from 4 independent studies. We followed our initial discoveries with network and eQTL analysis of candidate signals in tissues. The meta-analysis resulted in a list of 536 suggestive genome wide significant SNPs in or near 69 genes. Further interrogation with Pathway Analysis placed gait speed as a polygenic complex trait in five major networks. Subsequent eQTL analysis revealed several SNPs significantly associated with the expression of PRSS16, WDSUB1 and PTPRT, which in addition to the meta-analysis and pathway suggested that genetic effects on gait speed may occur through synaptic function and neuronal development pathways. No genome-wide significant signals for gait speed were identified from this moderately large sample of older adults, suggesting that more refined physical function phenotypes will be needed to identify the genetic basis of gait speed in aging.

}, issn = {1945-4589}, doi = {10.18632/aging.101151}, author = {Ben-Avraham, Dan and Karasik, David and Verghese, Joe and Lunetta, Kathryn L and Smith, Jennifer A and Eicher, John D and Vered, Rotem and Deelen, Joris and Arnold, Alice M and Buchman, Aron S and Tanaka, Toshiko and Faul, Jessica D and Nethander, Maria and Fornage, Myriam and Adams, Hieab H and Matteini, Amy M and Callisaya, Michele L and Smith, Albert V and Yu, Lei and De Jager, Philip L and Evans, Denis A and Gudnason, Vilmundur and Hofman, Albert and Pattie, Alison and Corley, Janie and Launer, Lenore J and Knopman, Davis S and Parimi, Neeta and Turner, Stephen T and Bandinelli, Stefania and Beekman, Marian and Gutman, Danielle and Sharvit, Lital and Mooijaart, Simon P and Liewald, David C and Houwing-Duistermaat, Jeanine J and Ohlsson, Claes and Moed, Matthijs and Verlinden, Vincent J and Mellstr{\"o}m, Dan and van der Geest, Jos N and Karlsson, Magnus and Hernandez, Dena and McWhirter, Rebekah and Liu, Yongmei and Thomson, Russell and Tranah, Gregory J and Uitterlinden, Andr{\'e} G and Weir, David R and Zhao, Wei and Starr, John M and Johnson, Andrew D and Ikram, M Arfan and Bennett, David A and Cummings, Steven R and Deary, Ian J and Harris, Tamara B and Kardia, Sharon L R and Mosley, Thomas H and Srikanth, Velandai K and Windham, Beverly G and Newman, Ann B and Walston, Jeremy D and Davies, Gail and Evans, Daniel S and Slagboom, Eline P and Ferrucci, Luigi and Kiel, Douglas P and Murabito, Joanne M and Atzmon, Gil} }