Multi‐omics analyses highlight molecular differences between clinical and neuropathological diagnoses in Alzheimer's disease

Abstract

AbstractBoth clinical diagnosis and neuropathological diagnosis are commonly used in literature to categorize individuals as Alzheimer's disease (AD) or non‐AD in omics analyses. Whether these diagnostic strategies result in distinct profiles of molecular abnormalities is poorly understood. Here, we analysed one of the most commonly used AD omics datasets in the literature from the Religious Orders Study and Memory and Aging Project (ROSMAP) cohort and compared the two diagnosis strategies using brain transcriptome and metabolome by grouping individuals as non‐AD and AD according to clinical or neuropathological diagnosis separately. Differentially expressed genes, associated pathways related with AD hallmarks and AD‐related genes showed that the categorization based on neuropathological diagnosis more accurately reflects the disease state at the molecular level than the categorization based on clinical diagnosis. We further identified consensus biomarker candidates between the two diagnosis strategies such as 5‐hydroxylysine, sphingomyelin and 1‐myristoyl‐2‐palmitoyl‐GPC as metabolite biomarkers and sphingolipid metabolism as a pathway biomarker, which could be robust AD biomarkers since they are independent of diagnosis strategies. We also used consensus AD and consensus non‐AD individuals between the two diagnostic strategies to train a machine‐learning based model, which we used to classify the individuals who were cognitively normal but diagnosed as AD based on neuropathological diagnosis (asymptomatic AD individuals). The majority of these individuals were classified as consensus AD patients for both omics data types. Our study provides a detailed characterization of both diagnostic strategies in terms of the association of the corresponding multi‐omics profiles with AD.