Premium
No evidence for genetic association or linkage of the cathepsin D ( CTSD ) exon 2 polymorphism and Alzheimer disease
Author(s) -
Bertram Lars,
Guénette Suzanne,
Jones Jennifer,
Keeney Devon,
Mullin Kristina,
Crystal Adam,
Basu Sanjay,
Yhu Stephen,
Deng Amy,
Rebeck G. William,
Hyman Bradley T.,
Go Rodney,
McInnis Melvin,
Blacker Deborah,
Tanzi Rudolph
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
annals of neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.764
H-Index - 296
eISSN - 1531-8249
pISSN - 0364-5134
DOI - 10.1002/1531-8249(200101)49:1<114::aid-ana18>3.0.co;2-m
Subject(s) - transmission disequilibrium test , linkage disequilibrium , exon , genetics , cathepsin d , genetic association , allele , biology , alzheimer's disease , genotype , missense mutation , disease , haplotype , medicine , gene , single nucleotide polymorphism , mutation , biochemistry , enzyme
Two recent case‐control studies have suggested a strong association of a missense polymorphism in exon 2 of the cathepsin D gene ( CTSD ) and Alzheimer disease (AD). However, these findings were not confirmed in another independent study. We analyzed this polymorphism in two large and independent AD study populations and did not detect an association between CTSD and AD. The first sample was family‐based and included 436 subjects from 134 sibships discordant for AD that were analyzed using the sibship disequilibrium test (SDT, p = 0.68) and the sib transmission/disequilibrium test (Sib‐TDT, p = 0.81). The second sample of 200 AD cases and 182 cognitively normal controls also failed to show significant differences in the allele or genotype distribution in cases versus controls (X 2 , p = 0.91 and p = 0.88, respectively). In addition, two‐point linkage analyses in an enlarged family sample ( n = 670) did not show evidence for linkage of the chromosomal region around CTSD . Thus, our analyses on more than 800 subjects suggest that if an association between the CTSD exon 2 polymorphism and AD exists, it is likely to be smaller than previously reported. Ann Neurol 2001;49:114–116