4.1 Review

Genomic variants, genes, and pathways of Alzheimer's disease: An overview

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32499

关键词

late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD); Alzheimer's disease (AD); genome-wide association studies (GWAS); next-generation sequencing; pathway analysis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging [U01 AG032984]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [U24AG021886, U01AG032984] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alzheimer's disease (AD) (MIM: 104300) is a highly heritable disease with great complexity in its genetic contributors, and represents the most common form of dementia. With the gradual aging of the world's population, leading to increased prevalence of AD, and the substantial cost of care for those afflicted, identifying the genetic causes of disease represents a critical effort in identifying therapeutic targets. Here we provide a comprehensive review of genomic studies of AD, from the earliest linkage studies identifying monogenic contributors to early-onset forms of AD to the genome-wide and rare variant association studies of recent years that are being used to characterize the mosaic of genetic contributors to late-onset AD (LOAD), and which have identified approximately approximate to 20 genes with common variants contributing to LOAD risk. In addition, we explore studies employing alternative approaches to identify genetic contributors to AD, including studies of AD-related phenotypes and multi-variant association studies such as pathway analyses. Finally, we introduce studies of next-generation sequencing, which have recently helped identify multiple low-frequency and rare variant contributors to AD, and discuss on-going efforts with next-generation sequencing studies to develop statistically well- powered and comprehensive genomic studies of AD. Through this review, we help uncover the many insights the genetics of AD have provided into the pathways and pathophysiology of AD. (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.1
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