4.1 Article

Longitudinal change in working memory as a function of APOE genotype in midlife and old age

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 268-277

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12123

关键词

APOE; longitudinal; cross-sectional; working memory; middle-age; old-age; cognitive phenotype

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous investigations into whether the APOE-epsilon 4 allele exerts cognitive effects at midlife have been inconclusive. We have advanced a cognitive phenotype hypothesis arguing that the epsilon 4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) is associated with lower efficiency of neuronal plasticity thereby resulting in poorer cognitive performance independently of the pathology of Alzheimer's disease (Greenwood etal., ). This hypothesis is best tested at midlife, prior to the neuron loss associated with AD diagnosis. This hypothesis predicts that the epsilon 4 allele would alter cognition regardless of age through plasticity mechanisms, but would not induce longitudinal decline in midlife. The alternative prodrome hypothesis predicts that the APOE-epsilon 4 allele would be associated with longitudinal cognitive decline as early as midlife due to prodromal effects of AD. We tested these hypotheses with a working memory task in a large cross-sectional sample of cognitively screened APOE-epsilon 4 carriers and non-carriers and also in a small longitudinal sample over 3years. The sample was divided into middle-aged (mean age 50, range 40-59) and older (mean age 69, range 60-84) individuals. Cross-sectionally, we observed that older, but not middle-aged, APOE-epsilon 4 carriers had lower accuracy than epsilon 4 non-carriers, mainly under the hardest discrimination condition. Longitudinally, we observed increases in accuracy in middle-aged APOE-epsilon 4 carriers, suggesting a cognitive phenotype that includes ability to benefit from experience. We observed a longitudinal decrease in older APOE-epsilon 4 carriers, suggesting an AD prodrome.

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