4.6 Article

Apolipoprotein E Induced Cognitive Dysfunction: Mediation Analysis of Lipids and Glucose Biomarkers in an Elderly Cohort Study

期刊

FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.727289

关键词

APOE; lipids; glucose; cognitive function; mediation analysis

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC2000400]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [72061137004]
  3. U.S. National Institute of Aging of National Institute of Health [P01AG031719]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found complex relationships among APOE genotype, lipids, glucose, and cognitive function, with possible mediation or effect modification by lipids and glucose levels. However, abnormal lipids or glucose levels were not consistently associated with cognitive dysfunction in this study.
Introduction: Prior evidence suggested Apolipoprotein E (APOE), lipids, and glucose metabolism may act through the same pathways on the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: This prospective study used data from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Study. We tested the associations of APOE genotype (epsilon 2 epsilon 2, epsilon 2 epsilon 3, epsilon 2 epsilon 4, epsilon 3 epsilon 3, epsilon 3 epsilon 4, and epsilon 4 epsilon 4) and cognitive function using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We examined for possible mediation and effect modification by lipids and glucose level in this association. Results: APOE epsilon 2 showed significant direct protective effect and indirect harmful effect through TC on cognitive function. Abnormal lipids or glucose levels were not consistently associated with cognitive dysfunction in our study. We did not detect significant indirect effects through lipids for APOE epsilon 4 or any indirect effects through glucose. Discussion: These findings suggested complicated relationships among APOE, lipids, glucose, and cognitive function. Further study can make validations in other populations.

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

4.6
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