Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

July 09, 2002; 59 (1) Article

Contribution of APOE promoter polymorphisms to Alzheimer’s disease risk

J. C. Lambert, L. Araria-Goumidi, L. Myllykangas, C. Ellis, J. C. Wang, M. J. Bullido, J. M. Harris, M. J. Artiga, D. Hernandez, J. M. Kwon, B. Frigard, R. C. Petersen, A. M. Cumming, F. Pasquier, I. Sastre, P. J. Tienari, A. Frank, R. Sulkava, J. C. Morris, D. St. Clair, D. M. Mann, F. Wavrant-DeVrièze, M. Ezquerra-Trabalon, P. Amouyel, J. Hardy, M. Haltia, F. Valdivieso, A. M. Goate, J. Pérez-Tur, C. L. Lendon, M. C. Chartier-Harlin
First published July 9, 2002, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.59.1.59
J. C. Lambert
From the INSERM U508 (Drs. Lambert, Ezquerra-Trabalon, Amouyel, and Chartier-Harlin, and L. Araria-Goumidi), Institut Pasteur de Lille, Lille, France; Molecular Psychiatry Department (Drs. Lambert and Lendon and J. Harris), Division of Neuroscience, Queen Elisabeth Psychiatry Hospital, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Pathology (Drs. Myllykangas and Haltia), University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland; Department of Neuroscience (C. Ellis, D. Hernandez, and Drs. Wavrant-DeVrièze, Hardy, and Pérez-Tur), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Departments of Psychiatry (Drs. Wang and Goate) and Neurology (Drs. Kwon and Morris), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Departamento de Biologia Molecular (Drs. Bullido, Artiga, and Valdivieso and I. Sastre) and Centro de Biologia Molecular Severo Ochoa (CSIC-UAM), Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain; Centre de Gériatrie de Wasquehal-Molinel (Dr. Frigard), Wasquehal, France; Department of Neurology (Dr. Petersen), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Molecular and Cell Biology (Drs. Cumming and Pérez-Tur), University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom; CHR et Université de Lille (Dr. Pasquier), Clinique Neurologique, Centre de la Mémoire, Hôpital Salengro, Lille, France; Department of Neurology (Dr. Tienari), Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland; Servicio de Neurologia (Dr. Frank), Hospital Universitario la PAZ (UAM), Madrid, Spain; Department of Public Health and General Practice (Dr. Sulkava), University of Kuopio, Finland; Greater Manchester Neurosciences Centre (Dr. St Clair), Hope Hospital, Salford, United Kingdom; Laboratory Medicine Academic Group (Dr. Mann), Department of Medicine, Stopford Building, University of Manchester, United Kingdom; Unitat de Genètica Molecular (Dr. Pérez-Tur), Institut de Biomedicina de València-CSIC, València, Spain.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Araria-Goumidi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Myllykangas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Ellis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. C. Wang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. J. Bullido
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. M. Harris
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. J. Artiga
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Hernandez
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. M. Kwon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Frigard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. C. Petersen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. M. Cumming
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Pasquier
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
I. Sastre
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. J. Tienari
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Frank
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Sulkava
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. C. Morris
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. St. Clair
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. M. Mann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Wavrant-DeVrièze
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Ezquerra-Trabalon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Amouyel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Hardy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Haltia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Valdivieso
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. M. Goate
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Pérez-Tur
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. L. Lendon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. C. Chartier-Harlin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Contribution of APOE promoter polymorphisms to Alzheimer’s disease risk
J. C. Lambert, L. Araria-Goumidi, L. Myllykangas, C. Ellis, J. C. Wang, M. J. Bullido, J. M. Harris, M. J. Artiga, D. Hernandez, J. M. Kwon, B. Frigard, R. C. Petersen, A. M. Cumming, F. Pasquier, I. Sastre, P. J. Tienari, A. Frank, R. Sulkava, J. C. Morris, D. St. Clair, D. M. Mann, F. Wavrant-DeVrièze, M. Ezquerra-Trabalon, P. Amouyel, J. Hardy, M. Haltia, F. Valdivieso, A. M. Goate, J. Pérez-Tur, C. L. Lendon, M. C. Chartier-Harlin
Neurology Jul 2002, 59 (1) 59-66; DOI: 10.1212/WNL.59.1.59

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
952

Share

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the effects of APOE promoter polymorphisms on AD are independent of the APOE-ε4 allele.

Background: Recently, the −491 A→T and −219 G→T polymorphisms located in the APOE promoter have been suggested to be risk factors for AD. However, the effects of these polymorphisms have not always been reproduced in case-control studies, possibly because of the strong linkage disequilibrium existing at this locus or the characteristics of the populations studied.

Methods: Data collection was performed from six independent samples (1,732 patients with AD and 1,926 control subjects) genotyped for APOE exon 4 and the two APOE promoter polymorphisms. The risks associated with the APOE polymorphisms for developing AD were estimated using logistic regression procedures and calculation of odds ratios with 95% CI adjusted by age, sex, and collection center. Independence of the APOE promoter polymorphisms was tested by stratification for APOE-ε4 and tertile design was used for age stratification.

Results: The independence of the −491 AA genotype was observed in the whole sample whereas the independence of the −219 TT genotype was observed only in the oldest population.

Conclusion: The −491 and −219 APOE promoter polymorphisms incur risk for AD in addition to risk associated with the APOE-ε4 allele, with age accentuating the effect of the −219 TT genotype. Because these polymorphisms appear to influence apoE levels, these results suggest that APOE expression is an important determinant of AD pathogenesis.

AD is a multifactorial disease implicating interactions between environmental and genetic factors. To date, the only recognized risk factor for the most common forms of AD—defined as sporadic or complex (i.e., without obvious mendelian inheritance)—is the APOE gene on chromosome 19.1 This gene exists as three major alleles in the general population: ε2, ε3, and ε4, resulting from amino substitutions (Arg and Cys) at positions 112 and 158 of the protein. It is now well established that carrying an ε4 allele increases the risk for AD in an allele dose–dependent manner and is associated with an earlier age at onset of the disease.2 Conversely, bearing an ε2 allele confers protection against the disease.3,4⇓ Thus, APOE genotype appears to be an important biologic marker for AD susceptibility accounting for between 45 and 60% of AD genetic variability.5 However, possession of the ε4 allele is not sufficient to develop the disease, because as many as 50% of people who have two copies of ε4 and survive to age 80 years are not cognitively impaired. It has been proposed that other environmental determinants such as serious head injury, smoking, and cholesterol level may modify the APOE-related risk.6-8⇓⇓

Previous reports have suggested that additional factors within the APOE locus itself might also modulate this risk. Genetic studies of markers in the vicinity of the APOE locus have demonstrated that a combination of several polymorphisms increases the APOE-associated risk for AD, compared with the APOE polymorphism alone.4 Furthermore, the observation of a distortion of the allelic expression of the APOE gene suggests that in addition to a qualitative effect of the APOE-ε2/ε3/ε4 polymorphisms on the occurrence of AD, the quantitative expression of these alleles may also be a key determinant.9 This hypothesis was reinforced by the discovery of APOE promoter variants, in particular, −491 A→T and −219 G→T (also called Th1/E47cs), which are capable of modulating the risk for developing AD.10-13⇓⇓⇓ These polymorphisms seem to be functional and modulate APOE expression as described by in vitro and in vivo studies.10,11,13-16⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓ These observations may be particularly relevant to AD pathogenesis, because it has recently been shown that the amount of Aβ deposition in amyloid precursor protein (APP)V717F transgenic mouse brain correlates with the copy number of the APOE gene,17-19⇓⇓ i.e., the level of APOE expression.

However, the contribution of these promoter polymorphisms to AD susceptibility is controversial20 for two reasons. First, because strong linkage disequilibrium exists between the APOE promoter polymorphisms and the ε4 allele, it is difficult to detect an independent effect of these polymorphisms compared with the ε4 allele-related risk.12 Second, even though the association of these polymorphisms with increased risk for AD has been replicated or confirmed in some studies,15,21-24⇓⇓⇓⇓ other studies failed to reproduce this observation.20,24-28⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓ Discrepancies between these studies may result from several biases including ethnic heterogeneity, weak effects not detected in small populations, or specific confounding effects that are not restricted to a particular age group.

To address these concerns, we performed an analysis on patients with AD and control subjects from six participating centers. In this study, we confirm an association between both APOE promoter polymorphisms and risk for AD. The size of the cohort revealed that the association was independent of the ε4 allele-related risk despite strong linkage disequilibrium.

Materials and methods.

In October 1999, we selected from the published literature10-14⇓⇓⇓⇓ those studies that had genotype data available for all APOE coding, −491 A→T and −219 G→T polymorphisms. Unfortunately, most others only tested the −491 A→T polymorphism, thus limiting available data for studying them in combination. We contacted laboratories willing to share their data for a meta-analysis. From an initial population of 1,882 patients with AD and 2,006 control subjects, we obtained a final sample of 1,732 patients with AD and 1,926 control subjects for whom we possessed all relevant clinical and APOE locus genotype data.

The characteristics of the six populations are described in table 1 and detailed as described elsewhere.11,13,24,29-31⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓ These independent white populations were recruited from clinical, community samples. The diagnoses of probable AD were established at all sites according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III–Revised (DSM-III-R) and National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke–Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Assoications criteria, whereas the control subjects were defined as subjects without DSM-III-R dementia criteria and with integrity of their cognitive functions. Informed consent had been obtained from each individual or their relatives. For each subject, the following information was sought: a unique identifier, diagnostic status, age at sampling or death, age at disease onset, family history (defined as the presence of at least one first-degree relative with dementia), −491 A→T, −219 G→T, and APOE genotypes.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of patients with AD and control subjects

Genetic analysis of APOE polymorphisms.

The APOE genotypes were identified by PCR followed by digestion with HhaI, as slightly modified from the method of Hixson and Vernier.32 The −491 A→T genotyping was performed in all studies by a nested PCR design, as described by Bullido et al.11 A 1,423-bp fragment was amplified containing the transcriptional regulatory region, spanning −1017 to +406 relative to the transcriptional start site with primers 5′-CAAGGTCACACAGCTGGCAAC-3′ and 5-TCCAATCGACGGCTAGCTACC-3′. The 1,423-bp PCR product was therefore used as template using as forward mismatched primer: 5′-TGTTGGCCAGGCTGGTTTTAA-3′, and as reverse primer: 5′-CCTCCTTTCCTGACCC-TGTCC-3′. The PCR products were digested with DraI restriction enzyme.

The −219 G→T genotyping was determined by different methods depending on the center: A restriction digest method was based on the amplification of a 236-bp fragment using mismatched forward primer 5′-AGAATGGAGGAGGGTGCCTG-3′ and reverse primer 5′-ACTCAAGGATCCCAG-ACTTG-3′. The PCR product was subsequently digested with BstNI and separated on a 12% polyacrylamide gel. A second restriction digest method amplified a 220-bp fragment using mismatched forward primer (5′-AGAATGGAGGAGGGTGTCCG-3′) and reverse primer (5′-ACTTGTCCAATTATAGGGCTCC-3′). The PCR product was digested with Hpa II and separated on a 3% agarose gel. A third restriction digest method amplified a 231-bp fragment using mismatch forward primer (5′-AGAATGGAGGAGGGTGCCTG-3′) and reverse primer (5′-TCAAGGATCCCAGACTTGTCG-3′). The PCR product was digested with TaqI and separated on 2.5% agarose gel. All restriction fragment length polymorphisms digest products were visualized by ultraviolet after ethidium bromide staining.

Statistical analysis.

The SAS software release 6.11 was used (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Univariate analysis was performed using the Pearson χ2 test and the Fisher Exact test when necessary. In the multivariate analysis, we coded the genotypes of each APOE promoter polymorphism as dummy variables according to the hypothesis for a recessive model, i.e., TT vs GT+GG genotype for the −219 G→T polymorphism and AA vs AT+TT genotype for the −491 A→T polymorphism. Homogeneity of odds ratios (OR) between populations was tested using Breslow-Day computation.33

Logistic regression analysis was performed to control for age, sex, and center. Ages at last examination among patients with AD and control subjects were assigned to the age variable. The percent of the maximum possible value of linkage disequilibrium between the APOE coding and promoter polymorphisms was computed as outlined by Thompson et al.34 Because the APOE coding and APOE promoter polymorphisms were in strong linkage disequilibrium, the independence of the APOE promoter polymorphisms was tested by stratification for APOE-ε4. Extended haplotype distribution of all the markers was estimated on collapsed data using the myriad haplotype algorithm described by McLean and Morton,35 implemented in a computer program by Cox et al.36

Interactions between age, sex, −491 A→T, −219 G→T, and APOE polymorphisms were tested by logistic regression. Possible effects of age were sought by stratification using tertile design (age ≤ 71 years, 71 years to ≤ 81 years, and > 81 years), which were chosen in order to define the age- and size-matched groups.

Results.

None of the polymorphism distributions deviated from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium in control subjects.

The APOE coding polymorphism.

The distribution of the APOE-ε2/ε3/ε4 polymorphism in both control and AD samples is shown in table 2. As expected in the whole sample, the ε4 allele was a major risk factor for AD (OR = 4.6; 95% CI = 4.0 to 5.3), whereas the ε2 allele exhibited a protective effect (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.6). However, when the ε4 allele-related risk was compared between the centers, the range of OR was heterogeneous (Breslow-Day, p = 0.007), mainly due to the data from the Spanish study yielding an OR of 11.6, the range of other OR being narrow (3.4 to 5.3) (Breslow-Day, p < 0.17).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

APOE allele frequency in patients with AD and control subjects by center and odds ratios for developing AD according to the presence of the ε4 allele adjusted for sex, age, and center

As previously described, we also observed an effect of age on APOE-ε4–related risk4-5,35⇓⇓ (interaction, p = 0.05). When dividing the population in three equivalent classes (age ≤ 71 years, 71 years to ≤ 81 years, and >81 years), the stronger effect was observed in the middle age class, but in subjects > 81 years old, an important decrease of the APOE-ε4 effect was detected compared with younger age groups, in agreement with the data in the literature5,37⇓ (OR = 5.0, 95% CI = 4.0 to 6.4 for age ≤ 71 years; OR = 5.6, 95% CI, 4.2 to 7.4 for age from 71 to 81 years; and OR = 3.2, 95% CI = 2.4 to 4.2 for age > 81 years).

APOE promoter polymorphisms.

The distributions of the APOE promoter polymorphisms are shown in tables 3 and 4⇓ and compared between the different centers. The −219 TT genotype–related risk (OR = 1.3 to 3.3; see table 4) was homogeneous across all six studies (Breslow-Day p < 0.21). However, the range of the −491 AA genotype–related risk was greater (OR = 0.8 to 3.4; see table 3) and was heterogeneous (Breslow-Day p < 0.001). Multiple Breslow-Day tests for the −491 A→T polymorphism using several sample combinations did not allow us to define the center mainly responsible for this difference, confirming the strong heterogeneity of the effect of the −491 AA genotype on risk for AD between centers. To minimize the effect of this variability, we systematically adjusted OR for all logistic regression models by centers, age, and sex. The previously described linkage disequilibrium for the ε4 allele and promoter polymorphisms was verified in the current study.12 In the whole sample, the coefficients of linkage disequilibrium between the ε4 and the −491 A alleles was of 72.8% (range, 49.9 to 100%; p < 1.10-6) and between ε4 and 219 T alleles it was of 50.2% (range, 23 to 72%; p < 1.10-6). Therefore, we estimated the effect of each polymorphism on AD risk in the groups of carriers and noncarriers of the ε4 alleles. Finally, we also examined whether the impact the APOE promoter polymorphisms was closely related to the variation of the ε4 allele–related risk according to age, in order to clarify their independence from the ε4 allele (table 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

−491 A→T allele and genotype distributions in patients with AD and control subjects by center and odds ratios for developing AD according to the −491 AA genotype adjusted for sex, age, and center

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

−219 G→T allele and genotype distributions in patients with AD and control subjects by center and odds ratios for developing AD according to the −219 TT genotype adjusted for sex, age, and center

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Odds ratios for developing AD according to the −491 A→T, −219 G→T, and APOE genotype ≤81 and >81 years old adjusted for sex, age, and center

Impact of the −491 A→T polymorphism.

The −491 AA genotype was associated with an increased risk for developing AD (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5 to 1.9, p < 0.0001; see table 3). This effect appeared to be independent of the ε4 allele, because this association is preserved in both bearers and nonbearers of the ε4 (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.6, p < 0.003 in non-ε4 bearers and OR = 1.4 = 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.8, p < 0.04 in the ε4 bearers). Sustaining the increased risk associated with the −491 A allele independently of the ε4 allele, we observed an increased risk associated with the −491A-ε3 haplotype compared with the −491 T-ε3 haplotype (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.5, p < 0.003).

No interaction between the −491 A→T polymorphism and sex (p = 0.29) was detected.

We divided the sample into three equivalent age classes (age ≤ 71 years, 71 years to ≤ 81 years, and > 81 years). The effect of the −491 AA genotype was similar in the two younger age classes and we merged these data. Before 81.1 years of age, the −491 AA genotype was a risk factor for AD (OR = 1.8, 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.1, p < 0.0001), this association being independent of the APOE genotype (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.7, p < 0.009 in non-ε4 bearers and OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1 to 2.1, p < 0.007, in ε4 bearers; see table 5). The effect of the −491 A-ε3 haplotype was also visible in the sample before ≤ 81 years old (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.4, p < 0.003).

Impact of the −219 G→T polymorphism.

The −219 TT genotype was associated with an increased risk for developing AD (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.8, p < 0.0001; see table 4). We did not detect an independent effect of the −219 TT genotype on risk for AD, when stratified for APOE genotype (OR = 1.2, 95 CI% = 1.0 to 1.5, p < 0.07 in ε4 nonbearers; OR = 1.2, 95 CI% = 1.0 to 1.5, p < 0.16 in ε4 bearers). No interaction between the −219 G→T polymorphism and sex was detected (p < 0.43).

When stratifying for age using the same three age classes (age ≤ 71 years, 71 years to ≤ 81 years, and > 81 years), the −219 TT genotype was associated with an increased risk for developing AD in the > 81 years class (OR = 2.0, 95 CI% = 1.5 to 2.8, p < 0.0001) this association being independent of the ε4 allele (see table 5). When stratifying for ε4 status, the effect of the −219 TT genotype appeared independent of the ε4 allele (OR = 1.6, 95 CI% = 1.0 to 2.3, p < 0.03 in ε4 nonbearers; OR = 1.9, 95 CI% = 1.2 to 3.2, p < 0.01 in ε4 bearers). Supporting this independent effect, the association of the −219 TT genotype was observed despite the approximately twofold decrease of the ε4 allele–related risk in the elderly group compared with the youngest group. These data suggested that the risk associated with the −219 TT genotype may be obscured by the strong effect of the ε4 allele–related risk in the youngest group. Supporting the effect of age, an increased risk was observed for the carriers of the −219 T-ε4 compared with the −219 G -ε4 haplotype in the sample > 81 years old (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.7 to 2.6, p < 10−7).

Discussion.

The purpose of this study was to collect data from a large number of white patients with AD and control subjects, all genotyped for the APOE, −219, and −491 polymorphisms to assess the variability in the strength of the association between the −491 and −219 APOE promoter polymorphisms and AD and the degree of independence of their effects compared with the ε4 allele–related risk. Indeed, the degree of linkage disequilibrium of these two polymorphisms with the ε4 allele is important and does not allow simple evaluation of their respective contributions even by stratifying the population. Furthermore, the size of the sample studied is a critical parameter; a recent analysis of both these promoter polymorphisms did not confirm their independent association compared with the ε4 allele,38 but trends toward an excess of the −219 TT genotype (27 vs 23%) and of the −491 AA genotype (75 vs 67%) were observed in patients compared with control subjects. Our analysis of 3,658 individuals demonstrates a moderate but significant effect of the −491 A→T polymorphism on the risk for AD, independent of the ε4 allele. Similarly, we detect an effect of the −219 G→T polymorphism independent of the ε4 allele, but this was restricted to the older age group. Because one-third of our oldest population came from the Finnish population, in which the −219 G→T polymorphism is associated with the highest effect, this may suggest that our observation was due only to this population. However, when the Finnish population was excluded from the analysis, similar effects of the −219 TT genotype were observed after APOE stratification in the oldest group (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.9 to 2.2, p < 0.17 in non-ε4 bearers and OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0 to 3.1, p < 0.07 in ε4 bearers). Because the lack of significance may result from the reduction in size of the population (almost 300 patients with AD and control cases), this observation indicated that the impact of the −219 G→T polymorphism in the oldest subjects may be independent of the effect of this polymorphism in the Finnish population. Supporting this observation, an increased risk remained in carriers of the −219T-ε4 compared with the −219 G-ε4 haplotype in the sample > 81 years of age when the Finnish population was excluded (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.4, p < 9.10-7).

Furthermore, our observations were supported by a recent study that reported an independent effect of the −219 TT genotype on the risk for developing dementia using a population-based cohort of 648 subjects aged ≥ 85 years (Leiden 85-plus study).39

It is of note that the clinical diagnosis of AD in the oldest group (> 81 years) may be problematic because these subjects often have other simultaneous neuropathologic processes (e.g., vascular) contributing to dementia. This may result in incorrect clinical definition of both AD and control subjects.40 This problem may be illustrated in the Vantaa Finnish population, which consists of individuals aged ≥ 85 years of age. In the subgroup we used for the meta-analysis, there was a significant effect of the −219 genotype on the risk for clinically diagnosed AD (see table 4). When neuropathologic criteria were used to define AD and control subjects, in another subgroup, the overall association with the −219 genotype was not found.41 However, in haplotype analysis of neuropathologically verified ε3/ε3 subjects, the −219 polymorphism significantly modulated the risk for neuropathologic AD and β-amyloid deposition, consistent with the view that the haplotype background of APOE influences AD risk independent of apoE isoform.

The risks imposed by these specific genotypes may be difficult to assess without a more thorough analysis of the larger APOE haplotypes. A recent study examining APOE variation at the sequence haplotype level observed 22 biallelic polymorphisms and 31 haplotypes within a 5.5-kb stretch of DNA, including the four exons of the gene and some upstream sequence.42 Seven of the 22 variants occurred within the sequence 5′ of the transcriptional start site and thus have the potential to alter levels of APOE transcription. Because the observed haplotypes showed important interpopulation differences in frequency, it might be expected that the relative risk for AD associated with these promoter polymorphisms would vary substantially, as it does for the APOE-ε4 allele. Among the different polymorphisms analyzed, the −219 site was one that defined major subtypes of both ε3 and ε4 haplotypes in multiple populations, and the −491 site was the most homoplastic site, which is the inferred occurrence of multiple independent evolutionary events giving rise to the same allelic state at a variable site.42 Indeed in our study, the magnitude of the effect of the −491 A→T polymorphism in all age groups combined is heterogeneous between the different centers. Interestingly, the frequency of the −491 A→T polymorphism in control subjects varies not only in the six populations reported here but also in recent publications.20,24⇓ This variability may also result in part from differences in control ascertainment or genotyping errors.

Despite Breslow-Day analysis results, bias may appear from the heterogeneity of our six populations. In order to restrict these potential problems we systematically adjusted for age, sex, and centers in our logistic model but also used an age tertile design to homogenate our sample. For instance, the tertile distribution of the sample as a function of sex was homogeneous (data not shown). Nonetheless, it is of note that we were limited because only a few studies have performed the genotyping on both promoter polymorphisms, whereas a number of reports examine the potential involvement of the −21925 or the −49126-28⇓⇓ promoter polymorphisms.

Although both promoter polymorphisms exert effects that are independent of ε4 status, it is not clear how they influence the AD process. Evidence has been put forward in support of an allele-specific effect of the polymorphisms on APOE expression. In vitro, nuclear protein binding as well as reporter gene expression is modified by the −491 A→T and −219 G→T polymorphism alleles.10,11,14⇓⇓ In vivo, allelic mRNA expression in AD brains, as well as apoE protein concentration in plasma, is correlated with these polymorphisms, although it is recognized that we do not know whether the same relationships exist to modify the amount of apoE protein in brain tissue.15,16⇓ A study of APOE expression in the brain and its modulation by promoter polymorphisms may lead to a better understanding of the role of apoE in the AD process. Recently, we have reported that polymorphisms in the promoter of APOE are associated with the amount of amyloid peptide (Aβ) in the brains of patients with AD, an effect that is independent of APOE genotype.43 Interestingly, the effect of the −219 TT genotype on Aβ load is stronger in the oldest age group, consistent with the findings of this analysis. Furthermore, in a large cohort of control brains, the number of senile plaques in two brain regions (CA1, subiculum), was significantly greater in individuals homozygous for the T allele of the −219 G→T, although it is not clear whether this effect was independent of the ε4 allele.44 Interestingly, recent studies in transgenic mice expressing APPV717F and human APOE genes17-19⇓⇓ show that the amount of human APOE transgene product in the brain, particularly in ε4 mice, correlates with Aβ deposition as the mice get older. Collectively, these data demonstrate the importance of the correlation between the APOE expression and Aβ peptide deposition in humans.

Acknowledgments

Supported by INSERM, Institut Pasteur de Lille, the Conseil Régional du Nord-Pas de Calais (“Funds for Neurodegenerative Research” 9926002), The South Birmingham Mental Health Trust, Fundación Ramon Areces, The Academy of Finland (project number 48173), and Helsinki University Central Hospital (EVO Trust Funding), The Finnish Cultural Foundation, the NIH/NIA (grants #AG05681, AG03991 to J.C.M. 38 A.M.G., AG16208 to A.M.G. 38 J.H.), the Mayo Foundation and an investigator-initiated grant and Zenith award from the Alzheimer’s Association (A.M.G., J.H.), with fellowships from Marie Curie (J.C.L.), Institut Pasteur-Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais (L.A.G.) and poste-vert INSERM (M.E.T.)

Acknowledgment

The authors thank John Coates, Birmingham University, for technical assistance, and David Neary and Julie Snowden, Department of Neurology at Manchester Royal Infirmary, for sample collection.

  • Received December 24, 2001.
  • Accepted in final form March 14, 2002.

References

  1. ↵
    Strittmatter WJ, Weisgraber KH, Huang DY, et al. Binding of human apolipoprotein E to synthetic amyloid β peptide: isoform-specific effects and implications for late-onset Alzheimer disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 1993; 90: 8098–8102.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Corder EH, Saunders AM, Strittmatter WJ, et al. Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late-onset families. Science . 1993; 261: 921–923.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Corder EH, Saunders AM, Risch NJ, et al. Protective effect of apolipoprotein E type 2 for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Genet . 1994; 7: 180–184.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Chartier-Harlin MC, Parfitt M, Legrain S, et al. Apolipoprotein E ε4 as a major risk factor for sporadic early and late-onset forms of Alzheimer’s disease: analysis of the 19q13.2 chromosomal region. Hum Mol Genet . 1994; 3: 569–574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Farrer LA, Cupples LA, Haines JL, et al. Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. JAMA . 1997; 278: 1349–1356.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Mayeux R, Ottman R, Maestre G, et al. Synergistic effects of traumatic head injury and apolipoprotein-epsilon 4 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology . 1995; 45: 555–557.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Van Duijn CM, Havekes LM, van Broeckhoven C, de Kniff O, Hofman A. Apolipoprotein E genotype and association between smoking and early onset Alzheimer’s disease. BMJ . 1995; 310: 627–631.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Jarvik GP, Wijsman EM, Kukull WA, Schellenberg GD, Yu C, Larson EB. Interactions of apolipoprotein E genotype, total cholesterol level, age, and sex in prediction of Alzheimer’s disease: a case-control study. Neurology . 1995; 45: 1092–1096.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Lambert JC, Perez-Tur J, Dupire MJ, et al. Distortion of allelic expression of apolipoprotein E in Alzheimer’s disease. Hum Mol Genet . 1997; 12: 2151–2154.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    Artiga MJ, Bullido MJ, Sastre I, et al. Allelic polymorphisms in the transcriptional regulatory region of apolipoprotein E gene. FEBS Lett . 1998; 421: 105–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Bullido MJ, Artiga MJ, Recuero M, et al. A polymorphism in the regulatory region of APOE associated with risk for Alzheimer’s dementia. Nat Genet . 1998; 18: 69–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Lambert JC, Pasquier F, Cottel D, Frigard B, Amouyel P, Chartier-Harlin MC. A new polymorphism in the APOE promoter associated with risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Hum Mol Genet . 1998; 7: 533–540.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Lambert JC, Berr C, Pasquier F, et al. Pronounced impact of Th1/E47cs mutation compared with −491 AT mutation on neural APOE gene expression and risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Hum Mol Genet . 1998; 7: 1511–1516.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Artiga MJ, Bullido MJ, Frank A, et al. Risk for Alzheimer’s disease correlates with transcriptional activity of the APOE gene. Hum Mol Genet . 1998; 7: 1887–1892.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Laws SM, Taddei K, Martins G, et al. The −491AA polymorphism in the APOE gene is associated with increased plasma ApoE levels in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroreport . 1999; 10: 879–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Lambert JC, Brousseau T, Defosse V, et al. Independent association of an APOE gene promoter polymorphism with increased risk of myocardial infarction and decreased ApoE plasma concentrations: the ECTIM study. Hum Mol Genet . 2000; 9: 57–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Bales KR, Verina T, Dodel RC, et al. Lack of apolipoprotein E dramatically reduces amyloid beta-peptide deposition. Nat Genet . 1997; 17: 263–264.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Holtzman DM, Bales KR, Wu S, et al. Expression of human apolipoprotein E reduces amyloid-beta deposition in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. J Clin Invest . 1999; 103: R15–R21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Holtzman DM, Bales KR, Tenkova T, et al. Apolipoprotein E isoform-dependent amyloid deposition and neuritic degeneration in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 2000; 97: 2892–2897.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Bullido MJ, Valdivieso F. Apolipoprotein E gene promoter polymorphisms in Alzheimer’s Disease. Microsc Res Tech . 2000; 50: 261–267.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Bullido MJ, Guallar-Castillon P, Artiga MJ, et al. Alzheimer’s risk associated with human apolipoprotein E, alpha-2macroglobulin and lipoprotein receptor related protein polymorphisms: absence of genetic interactions, and modulation by gender. Neurosci Lett . 2000; 289: 213–216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Town T, Paris D, Fallin D, et al. The −491A/T apolipoprotein E promoter polymorphism association with Alzheimer’s disease: independent risk and linkage disequilibrium with the known APOE polymorphism. Neurosci Lett . 1998; 252: 95–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Casadei VM, Ferri C, Veglia F, et al. APOE-491 promoter polymorphism is a risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology . 1999; 53: 1888–1889.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Wang JC, Kwon JM, Shah P, Morris JC, Goate A. Effect of APOE genotype and promoter polymorphism on risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology . 2000; 55: 1644–1649.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Rebeck GW, Cheung BS, Growdon WB, et al. Lack of independent associations of apolipoprotein E promoter and intron 1 polymorphisms with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci Lett . 1999; 272: 155–158.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Helisalmi S, Hiltunen M, Valonen P, et al. Promoter polymorphism (−491A/T) in the APOE gene of Finnish Alzheimer’s disease patients and control individuals. J Neurol . 1999; 246: 821–824.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Roks G, Cruts M, Bullido MJ, et al. The −491 A/T polymorphism in the regulatory region of the apolipoprotein E gene and early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci Lett . 1998; 258: 65–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Chen L, Baum L, Ng HK, et al. Apolipoprotein E promoter and 2-Macroglobulin polymorphisms are not genetically associated with Chinese late onset Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci Lett . 1999; 269: 173–177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Myllykangas L, Polvikoski T, Sulkava R, et al. Genetic association of alpha2-macroglobulin with Alzheimer’s disease in a Finnish elderly population. Ann Neurol . 1999; 46: 382–390.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Baker M, Graff-Radford D, Wavrant DeVrieze F, et al. No association between TAU haplotype and Alzheimer’s disease in population or clinic based series or in familial disease. Neurosci Lett . 2000; 285: 147–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Harris J, Cummings A, Craddock N, et al. Human leukocyte antigen-A2 increases risk for Alzheimer’s disease but does not effect age of onset. Neurosci Lett . 2000; 294: 37–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Hixson JE, Vernier DT. Restriction isotyping of human apolipoprotein E by gene amplification and cleavage with HhaI. Lipid Res . 1990; 31: 545–548.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  33. ↵
    Breslow NE, Day NE, Halvorsen KT, et al. Estimation of multiple relative risk functions in matched case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol . 1978; 108: 299–307.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Thompson EA, Deeb S, Walker D, Motulsky AG. The detection of linkage disequilibrium between closely linked markers: RFLPs at the AI-CIII apolipoprotein genes. Am J Hum Genet . 1988; 42: 495–501.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    McLean CJ, Morton NE. Efficiency of Lod scores for representing multiple locus linkage data. Genet Epidemiol . 1985; 2: 263–272.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Cox NJ, Bell GI, Xiang KS. Linkage disequilibrium in the human insulin/insulin like growth factor II region of human chromosome II. Am J Hum Genet . 1988; 42: 495–501.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Bickeboller H, Campion D, Brice A, et al. Apolipoprotein E and Alzheimer disease: genotype-specific risks by age and sex. Am J Hum Genet . 1997; 60: 439–446.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    Zurutuza L, Verpillat P, Raux G, et al. APOE promoter polymorphisms do not confer independent risk for Alzheimer’s disease in a French population. Eur J Hum Genet . 2000; 8: 713–716.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    Heijmans BT, Slagboom PE, Gussekloo J, et al. Association of APOE varepsilon2/varepsilon3/varepsilon4 and promoter gene variants with dementia but not cardiovascular mortality in old age. Am J Med Genet . 2002; 107: 201–208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    Polvikoski T, Sulkava R, Myllykangas L, et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in very elderly people: a prospective neuropathological study. Neurology . 2001; 56: 1690–1696.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Myllykangas L, Polvikoski T, Reunanen BM, et al. APO ε3-haplotype modulates Alzheimer’s beta-amyloid deposition in the brain. Am J Med Genet . 2002; 114: 288–291.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    Fullerton SM, Clark AG, Weiss KM, et al. Apolipoprotein E variation at the sequence haplotype level: implications for the origin and maintenance of a major human polymorphism. Am J Hum Genet . 2000; 67: 881–900.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    Lambert J-C, Mann D, Goumidi L, et al. Effect of the APOE promoter polymorphisms on cerebral amyloid peptide deposition in Alzheimer’s disease brains. Lancet . 2001; 357: 608–609.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    Berr C, Lambert J-C, Sazdovitch V, et al. Neuropathological epidemiology of cerebral aging: a study of two genetic polymorphisms. Neurobiol Aging . 2001; 22: 227–235.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and methods.
    • Results.
    • Discussion.
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Topics Discussed

  • All Genetics
  • All epidemiology
  • Alzheimer's disease
  • Association studies in genetics
  • Risk factors in epidemiology

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published
Neurology: 99 (6)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Neurology: Education
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2022 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise