Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026
SuperAging is not the inverse of common-variant Alzheimer's risk: evidence across genetic ancestries.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Piras Ignazio Stefano, Capuano Ana Werneck, Maher Amanda Cook, Schafer Rhiana, Bonfitto Anna, Song Serena, Taguinod Francis, Goldstein Felicia, Roberts Angela, Okonkwo Ozioma, Martersteck Adam, SuperAging Research Initiative, Huentelman Matt J, Rogalski Emily
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: As longevity increases and the population over age 65 expands, advancing age remains the most reliable predictor of cognitive decline, highlighting the need to identify biological mechanisms that support exceptional cognitive aging. We tested whether lower inherited risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia predicts SuperAger status (adults ≥ 80 years with episodic memory at least as good as middle-age adults) using prospectively enrolled SuperAgers and Cognitively Average Controls (Controls) from the multisite SuperAging Research Initiative.
METHODS: We studied 231 participants (SuperAgers n = 142; Controls n = 89). We confirmed that the genetic ancestry structure across groups was comparable. We evaluated whether APOE status (ε2, ε3, ε4) and three AD polygenic risk scores (PRS) derived from large contemporary Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (PRSLambert, PRSWightman, PRSBellenguez) predicted SuperAging status using logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, and education, considering ancestry interactions.
RESULTS: APOE allele and genotype distributions did not differ between groups, and neither APOE nor any of the three PRS predicted SuperAger status. Results were unchanged when accounting for global non-European or African ancestry or principal components. In this well-characterized cohort, neither APOE nor contemporary PRS explained SuperAger status.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the exceptional late-life memory phenotype that is characteristic of SuperAging is not explained by common-variant AD genetic risk captured by APOE or contemporary AD PRS, motivating a deeper investigation of potential rare genetic variations and experiential factors contributing to exceptional cognitive aging.
METHODS: We studied 231 participants (SuperAgers n = 142; Controls n = 89). We confirmed that the genetic ancestry structure across groups was comparable. We evaluated whether APOE status (ε2, ε3, ε4) and three AD polygenic risk scores (PRS) derived from large contemporary Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (PRSLambert, PRSWightman, PRSBellenguez) predicted SuperAging status using logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, and education, considering ancestry interactions.
RESULTS: APOE allele and genotype distributions did not differ between groups, and neither APOE nor any of the three PRS predicted SuperAger status. Results were unchanged when accounting for global non-European or African ancestry or principal components. In this well-characterized cohort, neither APOE nor contemporary PRS explained SuperAger status.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the exceptional late-life memory phenotype that is characteristic of SuperAging is not explained by common-variant AD genetic risk captured by APOE or contemporary AD PRS, motivating a deeper investigation of potential rare genetic variations and experiential factors contributing to exceptional cognitive aging.