DNA Damage in Peripheral Blood Cells is Associated with Alzheimer's Disease (Ad)-Related Plasma Proteins in Individuals at Risk for Progression to AD

Shannon Risacher,Sungeun Kim,James Klaunig,Li Shen,Brenna McDonald,Martin Farlow,Bernardino Ghetti,Sujuan Gao,Zemin Wang,Shaoyu Zhou,Andrew Saykin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2013.05.106
2013-01-01
Abstract:Increased DNA damage, oxidative stress, and impaired DNA repair are implicated in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD), but little is known about prodromal stages or the relationship between these changes and cognitive function or other AD biomarkers. Direct and oxidative DNA damage was measured by comet assay from an ongoing study of older adults who are cognitively normal (CN) or who have cognitive complaints (CC; euthymic without performance deficits), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild AD (13 CN, 15 CC, 17 MCI, and 6 AD). The comet assays employed have been described previously [1]. Participants also underwent neuropsychological assessment including measures of general cognition (MMSE) and executive function (Test of Practical Judgment (TOP-J) [2]) as part of a larger battery. Blood samples were also used to measure levels of target proteins using the Myriad Rules Based Medicine (RBM) multi-analyte panel as previously described [3,4]. After quality control, 135 of 190 analytes were retained. Associations between comet measures, clinical performance, and plasma analyte levels were evaluated with age, gender, and education as covariates where appropriate. Demographic and selected clinical performance variables of the sample can be found in Table 1. Direct DNA damage was significantly associated with levels of multiple blood analytes, including clusterin (r = 0.407, p = 0.004; Fig 1A) and sortilin (r = 0.438, p = 0.002; Fig 1B). Oxidative DNA damage was associated with matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) levels (r = 0.480, p = 0.001; Fig 1C). Direct DNA damage showed trend level association with general cognition (MMSE) (r = -0.247, p = 0.09) and executive function (TOP-J) (r = -0.262, p = 0.07; Fig. 1D).
What problem does this paper attempt to address?