Cited by 576Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Conserved epigenomic signals in mice and humans reveal immune basis of Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Gjoneska, Elizabeta, Pfenning, Andreas R., Mathys, Hansruedi, Quon, Gerald, Kundaje, Anshul, Tsai, Li-Huei, Kellis, Manolis·2015·Nature

Abstract

Analysis of transcriptional and epigenomic changes in the hippocampus of a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease shows that immune function genes and regulatory regions are upregulated, whereas genes and regulatory regions involved in synaptic plasticity, learning and memory are downregulated; genetic variants associated with Alzheimer’s disease are only enriched in orthologues of upregulated immune regions, suggesting that dysregulation of immune processes may underlie Alzheimer’s disease predisposition. Recent genome-wide association studies have shown substantial genetic variation in non-coding regions associated with Alzheimer's disease, suggesting the involvement of aberrant gene regulation. However, the functional significance of these variants remained unclear. By profiling transcriptional and chromatin state dynamics in a mouse model, Elizabeta Gjoneska and colleagues now show that the immune response genes and their regulatory regions are upregulated, whereas those involved in synaptic plasticity and learning and memory are downregulated. These changes are highly conserved between the mouse model and the human disease. Surprisingly, Alzheimer's disease-associated genetic variants are mainly enriched in higher-activity, immune-related enhancers, and are depleted in lower-activity, neural enhancers. This suggests that genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's may be primarily associated with immune functions, while neuronal plasticity may be affected primarily by non-genetic effects. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a severe1 age-related neurodegenerative disorder characterized by accumulation of amyloid-β plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, synaptic and neuronal loss, and cognitive decline. Several genes have been implicated in AD, but chromatin state alterations during neurodegeneration remain uncharacterized. Here we profile transcriptional and chromatin state dynamics across early and late pathology in the hippocampus of an inducible mouse model of AD-like neurodegeneration. We find a coordinated downregulation of synaptic plasticity genes and regulatory regions, and upregulation of immune response genes and regulatory regions, which are targeted by factors that belong to the ETS family of transcriptional regulators, including PU.1. Human regions orthologous to increasing-level enhancers show immune-cell-specific enhancer signatures as well as immune cell expression quantitative trait loci, while decreasing-level enhancer orthologues show fetal-brain-specific enhancer activity. Notably, AD-associated genetic variants are specifically enriched in increasing-level enhancer orthologues, implicating immune processes in AD predisposition. Indeed, increasing enhancers overlap known AD loci lacking protein-altering variants, and implicate additional loci that do not reach genome-wide significance. Our results reveal new insights into the mechanisms of neurodegeneration and establish the mouse as a useful model for functional studies of AD regulatory regions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature14252

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Processing of ChIP-seq and ATAC-seq reads adhered to ENCODE/Roadmap guidelines, with small changes.

    “The techniques described for processing the ChIP-seq and ATAC-seq reads are based on ENCODE/Roadmap guidelines with a few modifications (Gjoneska et al., 2015; Landt et al., 2012; Roadmap Epigenomics et al., 2015).”

    From Loss of epigenetic information as a cause of mammalian aging (2023) · cites this paper as Gjoneska et al., 2015

    The Materials and Methods sections on ChIP-seq read mapping and differential analysis say the procedures were consistent with ENCODE standards and describe an adjustment for limited sequencing depth. The paper does not describe ATAC-seq read processing or say that its read-processing procedures followed Roadmap guidelines. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Genes expressed in myeloid cells display abnormal patterns of chromatin modification in AD mouse models and human samples.

    “At the epigenetic level, genes expressed in myeloid cells display abnormal patterns of chromatin modification in AD mouse models and human samples18–20.”

    From A common haplotype lowers PU.1 expression in myeloid cells and delays onset of Alzheimer's disease (2017) · cites this paper as [19]

    The paper’s epigenome analysis and Extended Data Figures 4–5 report altered histone marks at regulatory regions in the AD mouse model, alongside increased immune-gene expression. Its human analyses compare gene expression in AD patients and identify immune-cell enhancer activity at regions corresponding to the altered mouse enhancers; they do not show abnormal chromatin modifications measured in human AD samples. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increased PU.1 expression levels are associated with Alzheimer's disease and Huntington's disease.

    “Increased PU.1 expression levels are associated with AD (Gjoneska et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2017; Rustenhoven et al., 2018) and Huntington’s disease (Crotti et al., 2014)”

    From A novel molecular class that recruits HDAC/MECP2 complexes to PU.1 motifs reduces neuroinflammation (2023) · cites this paper as Gjoneska et al., 2015

    The paper reports increased PU.1 (SPI1) expression in a CK-p25 mouse model of AD-like neurodegeneration (passage [1], section labeled Abstract). That supports the AD association, but does not establish increased PU.1 expression in people with AD. The Huntington’s disease portion of the citing sentence is attributed to Crotti et al., not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In brain tissue from human Alzheimer's disease patients, microglia display the morphology and gene expression profile characteristic of an activated cell state and cluster around β-amyloid plaques.

    “In brain tissue from human AD patients, microglia display the morphology (Heppner et al., 2015) and gene expression profile (Gjoneska et al., 2015; Mathys et al., 2019) characteristic of an activated cell state and cluster around β-amyloid plaques.”

    From A novel molecular class that recruits HDAC/MECP2 complexes to PU.1 motifs reduces neuroinflammation (2023) · cites this paper as Gjoneska et al., 2015

    The paper reports higher immune-gene expression in hippocampal tissue from human AD patients and an activated microglial gene-expression signature in its mouse model (main text, page unavailable). It does not establish an activated gene-expression profile specifically in microglia isolated from human patients. The sentence cites Heppner et al. for morphology, not this paper; this paper also does not establish microglial clustering around plaques. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AD is characterized by neuroinflammation driven by activated microglia, a phenotype shared by many other forms of neurodegeneration.

    “In addition to β-amyloid and hyperphosphorylated tau accumulation in the brain, a major hallmark of AD is that of neuroinflammation driven by activated microglia, a phenotype shared by many other forms of neurodegeneration (Gjoneska et al., 2015).”

    From A novel molecular class that recruits HDAC/MECP2 complexes to PU.1 motifs reduces neuroinflammation (2023) · cites this paper as Gjoneska et al., 2015

    The paper’s main text (indexed under Abstract; page unavailable) reports increased immune-gene expression in human AD samples and a significant contribution from microglial activation in an AD-like mouse model. It does not establish that activated microglia drive neuroinflammation in human AD or that this phenotype is shared by many other forms of neurodegeneration. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gjoneska, E., Pfenning, A. R., Mathys, H., Quon, G., Kundaje, A., Tsai, L.-H., & Kellis, M.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
  • Tsai, Li-Huei
  • Kellis, Manolis
Venue
Nature
Published
2015-02-18
Volume
518
Issue
7539
Pages
365-369
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2125805216
Cited by
576
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 4
FWCI
53.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PMC
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (151885)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (RC1HG005334, R01HG004037)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS078839)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, epigenetics, chromatin state, enhancers, immune response genes, synaptic plasticity, hippocampus, ETS transcription factors, PU.1, neuroinflammation, expression quantitative trait loci, learning and memory, neurodegeneration, non-coding variants
MeSH terms
Proto-Oncogene Protein Spi-1, Alzheimer Disease, Animals, Chromatin, Disease Models, Animal, Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Immunity, Memory, Models, Biological, Neuronal Plasticity, Proto-Oncogene Proteins, Transcription, Genetic, Trans-Activators, Down-Regulation, Up-Regulation, Conserved Sequence, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Epigenesis, Genetic, Mice, Genome-Wide Association Study, Epigenomics

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.

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