4.7 Article

Apolipoprotein E genotype and memory in the sixth decade of life

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 70, 期 19, 页码 1771-1777

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000286941.74372.cc

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Virtually all adult studies of APOE genotypes and cognition have included individuals over 60. In older adults, epsilon 4 carriers may manifest greater cognitive asymmetries than non-epsilon 4 carriers even in the absence of overall mean differences. General cognitive ability may also be affected by aging and APOE genotype, but most studies have inadequately addressed this potential confound. The goals of this study were to examine, in middle age, the relationship of APOE genotype with episodic memory and verbal-visuospatial episodic memory asymmetries, after accounting for prior general cognitive ability. Method: We compared epsilon 4+ and epsilon 4-individuals in 626 male twins in their 50s. We examined verbal and visuospatial episodic memory and verbal-visual asymmetry scores after adjusting for cognitive ability at age 20. Analyses corrected for correlations between twin pair members. Results: Compared with epsilon 4-individuals, epsilon 4 carriers performed significantly more poorly on verbal, but not visuospatial memory, manifested significantly greater cognitive asymmetry, and also had significantly more concerns about memory. At age 20, epsilon 4 carriers had higher general cognitive ability than epsilon 4-individuals, and current memory differences were enhanced after adjusting for age 20 cognitive ability. Conclusions: Small, but significant, APOE-epsilon 4-related memory deficits appear in the sixth decade of life in individuals who show no signs of preclinical dementia. The results partially support studies of older adults that suggest that increased cognitive asymmetries reflect risk for dementia and are associated with the APOE-epsilon 4 genotype. The results also highlight the potential problems of not having accurate data on prior cognitive ability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据