4.4 Article

Homocysteine and cognitive performance: Modification by the ApoE genotype

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 430, Issue 1, Pages 64-69

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.10.021

Keywords

ApoE; homocysteine; cardiovascular risk factors; vitamins; cognitive performance

Categories

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL67358] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG03055] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We hypothesized that the magnitude of the association between plasma homocysteine concentration and cognitive performance is larger for ApoE-epsilon 4 carriers than for non-carriers. Nine hundred eleven dementia-free and stroke-free subjects (59% women) from the Maine-Syracuse study (26-98 years old) were stratified into no-ApoE-epsilon 4 (n = 667) and ApoE-epsilon 4 carrier (n = 244) cohorts. Employing a cross-sectional design and multiple regression analyses, plasma homocysteine was related to multiple domains of cognitive performance within these cohorts. When unadjusted, and with adjustment for age, education, gender, ethnicity, and previous cognitive examinations, homocysteine concentrations were inversely related to cognitive performance within both ApoE cohorts, with higher magnitude of associations within the ApoE-epsilon 4 cohort. With adjustment for cardiovascular disease risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and B-vitamin concentrations, the higher magnitude of associations between plasma homocysteine and cognitive performance within the ApoE-epsilon 4 cohort relative to the no-ApoE-epsilon 4 cohort persisted; but associations of plasma homocysteine and cognitive performance were attenuated and no longer significant within the no-ApoE-epsilon 4 cohort. Presence of the ApoE-epsilon 4 allele modifies the relation between plasma homocysteine and cognitive performance. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available