Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Machine Learning Selection of Most Predictive Brain Proteins Suggests Role of Sugar Metabolism in Alzheimer’s Disease

Machine Learning Selection of Most Predictive Brain Proteins Suggests Role of Sugar Metabolism in... Background:The complex and not yet fully understood etiology of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) shows important proteopathic signs which are unlikely to be linked to a single protein. However, protein subsets from deep proteomic datasets can be useful in stratifying patient risk, identifying stage dependent disease markers, and suggesting possible disease mechanisms.Objective:The objective was to identify protein subsets that best classify subjects into control, asymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AsymAD), and AD.Methods:Data comprised 6 cohorts; 620 subjects; 3,334 proteins. Brain tissue-derived predictive protein subsets for classifying AD, AsymAD, or control were identified and validated with label-free quantification and machine learning.Results:A 29-protein subset accurately classified AD (AUC = 0.94). However, an 88-protein subset best predicted AsymAD (AUC = 0.92) or Control (AUC = 0.92) from AD (AUC = 0.98). AD versus Control: APP, DHX15, NRXN1, PBXIP1, RABEP1, STOM, and VGF. AD versus AsymAD: ALDH1A1, BDH2, C4A, FABP7, GABBR2, GNAI3, PBXIP1, and PRKAR1B. AsymAD versus Control: APP, C4A, DMXL1, EXOC2, PITPNB, RABEP1, and VGF. Additional predictors: DNAJA3, PTBP2, SLC30A9, VAT1L, CROCC, PNP, SNCB, ENPP6, HAPLN2, PSMD4, and CMAS.Conclusion:Biomarkers were dynamically separable across disease stages. Predictive proteins were significantly enriched to sugar metabolism. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Alzheimer s Disease IOS Press

Machine Learning Selection of Most Predictive Brain Proteins Suggests Role of Sugar Metabolism in Alzheimer’s Disease

Machine Learning Selection of Most Predictive Brain Proteins Suggests Role of Sugar Metabolism in Alzheimer’s Disease

Journal of Alzheimer s Disease , Volume 92 (2): 14 – Mar 21, 2023

Abstract

Background:The complex and not yet fully understood etiology of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) shows important proteopathic signs which are unlikely to be linked to a single protein. However, protein subsets from deep proteomic datasets can be useful in stratifying patient risk, identifying stage dependent disease markers, and suggesting possible disease mechanisms.Objective:The objective was to identify protein subsets that best classify subjects into control, asymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AsymAD), and AD.Methods:Data comprised 6 cohorts; 620 subjects; 3,334 proteins. Brain tissue-derived predictive protein subsets for classifying AD, AsymAD, or control were identified and validated with label-free quantification and machine learning.Results:A 29-protein subset accurately classified AD (AUC = 0.94). However, an 88-protein subset best predicted AsymAD (AUC = 0.92) or Control (AUC = 0.92) from AD (AUC = 0.98). AD versus Control: APP, DHX15, NRXN1, PBXIP1, RABEP1, STOM, and VGF. AD versus AsymAD: ALDH1A1, BDH2, C4A, FABP7, GABBR2, GNAI3, PBXIP1, and PRKAR1B. AsymAD versus Control: APP, C4A, DMXL1, EXOC2, PITPNB, RABEP1, and VGF. Additional predictors: DNAJA3, PTBP2, SLC30A9, VAT1L, CROCC, PNP, SNCB, ENPP6, HAPLN2, PSMD4, and CMAS.Conclusion:Biomarkers were dynamically separable across disease stages. Predictive proteins were significantly enriched to sugar metabolism.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ios-press/machine-learning-selection-of-most-predictive-brain-proteins-suggests-S2gAQ0jaXW
Publisher
IOS Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 © 2023 – The authors. Published by IOS Press
ISSN
1387-2877
eISSN
1875-8908
DOI
10.3233/jad-220683
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background:The complex and not yet fully understood etiology of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) shows important proteopathic signs which are unlikely to be linked to a single protein. However, protein subsets from deep proteomic datasets can be useful in stratifying patient risk, identifying stage dependent disease markers, and suggesting possible disease mechanisms.Objective:The objective was to identify protein subsets that best classify subjects into control, asymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AsymAD), and AD.Methods:Data comprised 6 cohorts; 620 subjects; 3,334 proteins. Brain tissue-derived predictive protein subsets for classifying AD, AsymAD, or control were identified and validated with label-free quantification and machine learning.Results:A 29-protein subset accurately classified AD (AUC = 0.94). However, an 88-protein subset best predicted AsymAD (AUC = 0.92) or Control (AUC = 0.92) from AD (AUC = 0.98). AD versus Control: APP, DHX15, NRXN1, PBXIP1, RABEP1, STOM, and VGF. AD versus AsymAD: ALDH1A1, BDH2, C4A, FABP7, GABBR2, GNAI3, PBXIP1, and PRKAR1B. AsymAD versus Control: APP, C4A, DMXL1, EXOC2, PITPNB, RABEP1, and VGF. Additional predictors: DNAJA3, PTBP2, SLC30A9, VAT1L, CROCC, PNP, SNCB, ENPP6, HAPLN2, PSMD4, and CMAS.Conclusion:Biomarkers were dynamically separable across disease stages. Predictive proteins were significantly enriched to sugar metabolism.

Journal

Journal of Alzheimer s DiseaseIOS Press

Published: Mar 21, 2023

There are no references for this article.