Cited by 126Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 290 of the 294 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 301 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Genetic architecture of Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Neuner, Sarah M., TCW, Julia, Goate, Alison M.·2020·Neurobiology of Disease

Abstract

Advances in genetic and genomic technologies over the last thirty years have greatly enhanced our knowledge concerning the genetic architecture of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Several genes including APP, PSEN1, PSEN2, and APOE have been shown to exhibit large effects on disease susceptibility, with the remaining risk loci having much smaller effects on AD risk. Notably, common genetic variants impacting AD are not randomly distributed across the genome. Instead, these variants are enriched within regulatory elements active in human myeloid cells, and to a lesser extent liver cells, implicating these cell and tissue types as critical to disease etiology. Integrative approaches are emerging as highly effective for identifying the specific target genes through which AD risk variants act and will likely yield important insights related to potential therapeutic targets in the coming years. In the future, additional consideration of sex- and ethnicity-specific contributions to risk as well as the contribution of complex gene-gene and gene-environment interactions will likely be necessary to further improve our understanding of AD genetic architecture.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes the genetic architecture of Alzheimer’s disease, covering rare high-effect mutations in APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2, the major risk factor APOE, and many small-effect common variants. It argues that AD risk variants are enriched in regulatory elements active in myeloid immune cells and that integrative functional genomics is needed to identify causal genes and therapeutic targets.

Key findings

  • Autosomal dominant AD is rare (<1% of cases) and mostly caused by mutations in APP, PSEN1, or PSEN2; PSEN1 mutations are the most common monogenic cause, with over 350 mutations identified as of April 2020 and an estimated ~80% contribution to monogenic AD, while PSEN2 has only around 30 known ADAD mutations.
  • APOE is the strongest common genetic risk factor: APOEε3 is present in almost 80% of individuals, APOEε4 in ~14%; Caucasian APOEε4 homozygotes have on average a 15-fold increased LOAD risk versus non-carriers, one ε4 allele gives ~3-fold risk, and risk estimates differ by ethnicity (e.g., up to 30-fold in Japanese ε4 homozygotes, weaker or absent associations in some African-American, Hispanic, and Nigerian groups).
  • GWAS have identified many small-effect LOAD loci beyond APOE; the most recent meta-analysis included over 95,000 individuals across 46 datasets and validated over 20 loci, including BIN1, CD2AP, CLU, ABCA7, and INPP5D, while common variants explain only about 30% of AD heritability.
  • AD-associated common variants are not randomly distributed: they are enriched in regulatory elements active in immune/hematopoietic cells, especially monocytes, macrophages, and microglia, and to a lesser extent liver cells, with no enrichment in bulk brain datasets; rare variants such as TREM2 R47H also implicate microglial immune function.

Methods

  • Narrative review of genetic and functional genomic studies of Alzheimer’s disease, including monogenic AD, APOE, GWAS, rare variants, polygenic risk scores, endophenotype GWAS, somatic variation, copy number variation, sex-specific architecture, and model systems.
  • No primary data collection, sample, or statistical analysis is reported; the paper synthesizes published findings and publicly available annotation resources.
  • Key cited analyses include GWAS meta-analyses, rare-variant sequencing studies, functional annotation enrichment analyses, eQTL colocalization, and PRS studies.

Limitations

  • The paper states that GWAS cannot identify the causal variant or gene in an associated region, that common variants explain only ~30% of AD heritability, and that over 25% of variance remains unexplained by known genetic factors.
  • It notes that most functional annotation data come from healthy donors, that sex- and ethnicity-specific contributions are understudied, and that gene-gene and gene-environment interactions are difficult to identify; disease heterogeneity and mixed pathologies may also reduce GWAS power.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not report a systematic search strategy or formal quality assessment of included studies.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nbd.2020.104976

Cites

290 of 290 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

184 Not checked yet · 52 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 2 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 298 references — free account

Show all 156 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 73
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
94 of 94
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    GWAS SNPs simply act as tagging variants for a given risk locus and are often not themselves the causal variants.

    “GWAS SNPs simply act as tagging variants for a given risk locus and are often not themselves the causal variants.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Standard GWAS often suffer from being under-powered to identify true associations and may miss variants modifying disease risk.

    “standard GWAS often suffer from being under-powered to identify true associations and as such, may miss variants modifying disease risk.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Aβ-targeting strategies have largely failed to produce disease-modifying therapeutics.

    “Aβ-targeting strategies have largely failed to produce disease-modifying therapeutics”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    GWAS variants often fall within regions of high LD such that multiple non-causal variants are inherited together with putative causal variant(s).

    “GWAS variants often fall within regions of high LD such that multiple non-causal variants are inherited together with putative causal variant(s).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The brain is the organ most affected in AD, and regulation of gene expression in this tissue is important for disease pathogenesis.

    “the brain is still the organ most affected in AD, and the regulation of gene expression in this critical tissue is undoubtedly important for disease pathogenesis.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mouse and human share strong biochemical, developmental, physiological, and genetic similarities sufficient for mouse models to inform AD research.

    “Due to the strong biochemical, developmental, physiological, and genetic similarities between the mouse and human, the mouse represents an incredible resource for neuroscience research”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 126

Metadata

Authors
Neuner, S. M., TCW, J., & Goate, A. M.
Affiliations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
Goate, Alison M.
Venue
Neurobiology of Disease
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
143
Pages
104976
ISSN
0969-9961 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3036672623
Cited by
126
References
294
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • JPB Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (U01AG058635, U01AG052411, K01AG062683)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, genetic architecture, genetic susceptibility, APP, presenilin 1, presenilin 2, apolipoprotein E, genetic susceptibility loci, regulatory elements, myeloid cells, hepatocytes, cell type enrichment, gene-environment interaction, sex differences, ethnicity, therapeutic target
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Humans, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review