Next Article in Journal
Insights into Chemoreceptor MCP2201-Sensing D-Malate
Next Article in Special Issue
Circulating miR-10b-5p, miR-193a-3p, and miR-1-3p Are Deregulated in Patients with Heart Failure and Correlate with Hormonal Deficiencies
Previous Article in Journal
Myeloid PGGT1B Deficiency Promotes Psoriasiform Dermatitis by Promoting the Secretion of Inflammatory Factors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Deficits of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuropsychological Architecture Correlate with Specific Exosomal mRNA Expression: Evidence of a Continuum?

by
Ernesto Barceló
1,2,3,†,
María I. Mosquera-Heredia
4,†,
Oscar M. Vidal
4,
Daniel A. Bolívar
5,
Ricardo Allegri
6,
Luis C. Morales
4,
Carlos Silvera-Redondo
4,
Mauricio Arcos-Burgos
7,
Pilar Garavito-Galofre
4,‡ and
Jorge I. Vélez
5,*,‡
1
Instituto Colombiano de Neuropedagogía, Barranquilla 080020, Colombia
2
Department of Health Sciences, Universidad de La Costa, Barranquilla 080002, Colombia
3
Grupo Internacional de Investigación Neuro-Conductual (GIINCO), Universidad de La Costa, Barranquilla 080002, Colombia
4
Department of Medicine, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla 081007, Colombia
5
Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla 081007, Colombia
6
Institute for Neurological Research FLENI, Montañeses 2325, Buenos Aires C1428AQK, Argentina
7
Grupo de Investigación en Psiquiatría (GIPSI), Departamento de Psiquiatría, Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin 050010, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors share first coauthorship.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(10), 4897; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26104897
Submission received: 24 April 2025 / Revised: 16 May 2025 / Accepted: 18 May 2025 / Published: 20 May 2025

Abstract

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by cognitive decline and complex molecular changes. Extracellular vesicles (EVs), particularly exosomes, play a key role in intercellular communication and disease progression, transporting proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. While altered exosomal mRNA profiles have emerged as potential biomarkers for AD, the relationship between mRNA expression and AD neuropsychological deficits remains unclear. Here, we investigated the correlation between exosomx10-derived mRNA signatures and neuropsychological performance in a cohort from Barranquilla, Colombia. Expression profiles of 16,585 mRNAs in 15 AD patients and 15 healthy controls were analysed using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) and the Predictive Power Score (PPS). We identified significant correlations between specific mRNA signatures and key neuropsychological variables, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST), Boston Naming Test, and Rey–Osterrieth Figure test. These mRNAs were in key AD-associated genes (i.e., GABRB3 and CADM1), while other genes are novel (i.e., SHROOM3, SLC7A2, GJB4, and XBP1). PPS analyses further revealed predictive relationships between mRNA expression and neuropsychological variables, accounting for non-linear patterns and asymmetric associations. If replicated in more extensive and heterogeneous studies, these findings provide critical insights into the molecular basis governing the natural history of AD, potential personalized and non-invasive diagnosis, prognosis, follow-up, and potential targets for future therapies.

1. Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a complex neurodegenerative disorder characterized by cognitive decline, memory loss, and the accumulation of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the brain [1], is the leading cause of dementia among older adults, with the number projected to reach 153 million people by 2050 [2].
While AD mechanisms are still being researched, extracellular vesicles (EVs), especially exosomes, are increasingly implicated in disease risk and progression [3,4,5]. These EVs are nano-sized membranx10-bound vesicles released by cells into the extracellular environment that mediate intercellular communication by transporting proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids [4,6]. EVs contribute to the spread of pathogenic proteins like amyloid-beta (Aβ) and tau, causing neuronal damage [4]. In addition, AD-derived EVs contain elevated levels of toxic proteins, and the EV composition is altered [6]. Thus, messenger RNAs (mRNAs), long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), and circular RNAs (circRNAs) present within EVs offer a rich source of information regarding AD pathobiology [3,4,7,8].
Research studies comparing the exosomal mRNA content between AD patients and healthy controls have identified potential biomarkers associated with disease progression and related conditions [9,10,11,12,13,14]. These studies often employ RNA sequencing techniques to analyze the mRNA profiles of EVs isolated from various biological fluids, including blood and cerebrospinal fluid [5,15], and hold promise for developing non-invasive diagnostic tests for AD [5]. Interestingly, differentially expressed mRNAs between individuals with AD and healthy controls are often associated with pathways implicated in AD pathogenesis, such as amyloidogenesis, tauopathy, neuroinflammation, and neuronal apoptosis [5,15]. More recently, our group identified several key mRNA transcripts associated with AD susceptibility and AD age of onset (ADAOO) [8].
Despite the promising findings from our and other research studies showing altered mRNA profiles in individuals with AD, and the potential of exosomx10-derived mRNA expression levels as non-invasive biomarkers for AD susceptibility and ADAOO prediction, the relationship between mRNA expression and the neuropsychological profiles of AD remains poorly understood. Although research in this area is still in its early stages, some studies suggest potential correlations. For instance, changes in exosomx10-derived mRNA levels associated with neuronal function and inflammation may be linked to deficits in memory, executive function, and other cognitive domains as assessed by neuropsychological tests [4,6].
Here, we hypothesize that specific exosomx10-derived mRNA signatures define the architecture of AD neuropsychological profiles outlined by language, memory, executive function, and praxis deficiencies. Using advanced data analytics tools, we study how the expression of 16,580 mRNA signatures correlates with AD neuropsychological domains and identify mRNAs that could serve as potential biomarkers of neuropsychological deficiencies in patients with AD and narrow down the potential ADAOO in those affected patients. While validation in more extensive and more diverse cohorts is crucial, our findings establish a framework to investigate how mRNA expression profiles correlate with distinct neuropsychological deficits in AD. This work bridges molecular findings with the natural history of the disease, personalized and non-invasive diagnosis, prognosis, and longitudinal monitoring strategies. Furthermore, these insights may accelerate the development of personalized therapies by prioritizing candidate targets for intervention.

2. Results

2.1. Subjects

We collected data from 30 individuals (22 [73.3%] females, 15 [50%] with AD) through our clinical evaluation protocols. Table 1 summarizes the results of the neuropsychological examinations. As expected, we identified statistically significant differences in key neuropsychological variables between healthy controls and individuals diagnosed with AD.

2.2. mRNA Signatures Contributing to Neuropsychological Manifestations of AD

We quantified the expression of 16,585 mRNAs across all participants. A detailed analysis of these variables revealed that the expression of specific transcripts is associated with either enhanced or diminished performance. Figure 1 depicts the Manhattan plots for the neuropsychological variables with statistically significant results after correcting for multiple testing.
Table 2 reports the top mRNAs that are statistically significantly correlated with neuropsychological variables. We found 16 mRNAs to be statistically significantly correlated with the components of the ROCFT (Table 2). Some of these transcripts either increase or decrease the performance in the Copy or Recall components of ROCFT and are harbored in TMEM239, XBP1, LCP1, SGTA, PDE2A, GJB4, PCSK5, DYNC2H1, TEKT4, and PRKCZ genes (Table 2). For instance, higher expression levels of ENST00000361033 (TMEM239) are associated with a lower score in the Copy component of the ROCFT (Table 2). On the other hand, higher expression values of ENST00000295201 (TEKT4) increase the score in the Recall component of the ROCFT (Table 2).
A total of 157 mRNAs were potentially correlated with the Number of Spontaneous Clues. Regarding the Total Number of Correct responses, this number increased to 463 mRNAs (Table S1, Supplementary Material). Of these, mRNAs within the RIN3, MMP2, PRTN3, PSMD5, CINP, CCDC70, and SLC7A2 genes are positively correlated with the Number of Spontaneous Clues of the Boston Naming Test, while expression in ENST00000004531 (SLC7A2) is associated with a decrease in the Total Number of Correct responses (Table 2).
Evaluation of the potential association between Parts A and B of the Trail Making Test (TMT) and mRNA expression identified three transcripts—MLEC, CATG00000053936.1 (LAMA5), and PACSIN2—that were associated with reduced performance in the TMT (Table 2). The expression of mRNAs located in the CATG00000114908.1 (CDY2B), SHROOM3, and SAXO1 genes was found to be statistically significantly associated with performance in the Token test (Table 2). For instance, increased levels of MICT00000383608 (CDY2B) and ENST00000296043 (SHROOM3) are associated with poorer performance in the Token test, while increased expression of ENST00000380534 (SAXO1) correlated with better performance (Table 2).
Correlation analyses between mRNA expression levels and the Colors component of the Stroop test identified 157 statistically significant transcripts after correcting for multiple testing (Table S2, Supplementary Material). The most significant positive correlations with improved performance in the Colors test were observed for mRNAs associated with the XBP1, MNT, MMP11, and CBX7 genes (Table 2). Conversely, mRNAs linked to the CATG00000066161.1 (AMOTL2), SGTA, YKT6, IL12B, CATG00000036339.1 (BCL2), and CATG00000101329.1 (EPPK1) genes were negatively correlated (Table 2).
On the other hand, a total of 98 mRNAs were identified as significantly correlated with the number of words in the Stroop test after correction for multiple testing (Table S3, Supplementary Material). Table 2 shows the top 10 associated mRNAs. Specifically, mRNAs harbored in the KEAP1, RPS16, ACO2, and MT4 genes are positively correlated with improved performance (Table 2). Conversely, mRNAs within the EPS8L1, WISP1, C1QBP, CATG00000066161.1 (AMOTL2), MEP1A, and GOSR2 genes were negatively correlated with performance (Table 2).
Finally, we identified several transcripts significantly correlated with an increased performance in the number of correct responses, non-perseverant errors, and perseverant errors of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) after correcting for multiple testing (Table S4, Supplementary Material). Table 2 reports the top 10 mRNAs. Although many transcripts are in genomic regions without annotated genes, these regions may still play significant roles in gene regulation and cellular function. Of particular interest are ENST00000055682 (NEXMIF) and ENST00000013807 (ERCC1), whose expressions are correlated with a lower number of perseverant errors (Table 2).

2.3. PPS of mRNA Signatures Across Neuropsychological Tests

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the PPS across all neuropsychological variables. As expected, these distributions are asymmetric. On average, 18.24% of mRNAs have a negligible PPS, implying that these transcripts offer no diagnostic power on the neuropsychological variables of interest. Among those with a PPS > 0, the minimum PPS value is 0.072 (BNT [semantic clues]) and the maximum is 0.361 (FAST).
Table 3 reports the top five mRNAs with the highest PPS for each neuropsychological variable. Some of these transcripts are harboured in genes associated with key biological processes generally disrupted in individuals with AD, and show decent predictive power for assessing the neuropsychological manifestations of AD. Across all neuropsychological variables, the mRNA with the maximum PPS across all neuropsychological was ENST00000311550 (GABRB3; PPS = 0.647) in MoCA, followed by ENST00000343289 (NT5C2; PPS = 0.439) in MoCA test, ENST00000299367 (ATP6V1D; PPS = 0.430) in Lawton and Brody, and ENST00000340116 (ENOSF1; PPS = 0.428) and ENST00000331581 (CADM1; PPS = 0.425) in MoCA (Table 3). Other identified transcripts with high PPS are harboured in genes to the pathophysiological changes typically observed in AD (i.e., AMY2A, ANKH, ATP6V1D and B4GALT1), genes associated to cognitive decline, memory impairment, and other neuropsychological manifestations in AD (i.e., MECP2, S100B, GABRB3, BTBD16 and AP003108.2), and neuroinflammation (i.e., S100B, CTLA4 and CARD6) (Table 3).

3. Discussion

In this study, we investigated the relationship between exosomes-derived mRNA signatures and the neuropsychological manifestations of AD in individuals from Barranquilla, Colombia. Comparison between individuals diagnosed with AD and healthy controls revealed important differences in cognitive performance as measured by several neuropsychological tests, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST), Boston Naming Test (BNT), Verbal Fluency, Phonological Fluency, Trail Making Test (TMT), Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCFT), Stroop test and one of the components of the Wisconsin Card Sorting test (WCST)(Table 1).
Analysis of mRNA transcripts using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) identified significant correlations between mRNA expression levels and neuropsychological test performance in this cohort (Figure 1; Table 2). Several of these mRNAs are typically altered in AD, extending prior research on exosomal mRNA as potential biomarkers for AD [3,8,16,17,18,19]. Our findings suggest that changes in exosomal mRNA expression may contribute to the cognitive deficits characteristic of AD [9,20,21,22]. While some of these mRNAs are encoded by genes previously linked to AD-related processes, others are novel (Table 2 and Figure 1).
SLC7A2 plays a role in arginine metabolism, and its dysregulation is linked to AD through neuroinflammation and oxidative stress [23]. Arginine transport is important for nitric oxide synthesis, which affects vascular function and neuroinflammatory pathways. Reduced SLC7A2 expression may worsen inflammation and neuronal damage, leading to cognitive decline in AD.
PDE2A is crucial for regulating cAMP and cGMP homeostasis and is highly expressed in brain regions critical for socio-cognitive behavior that are vulnerable to AD [24,25]. Overexpression of PDE2A impairs mitochondrial function and causes extensive mitochondrial fragmentation in neurons, which can be an early indicator of AD [25]. PDE2A inhibitors, especially those targeting mitochondrial PDE2A2, are under NIH-funded investigation as potential treatments to mitigate memory loss and nerve damage in AD [25].
SGTA has emerged as a protein of interest in AD due to its multifunctional role in cellular processes potentially relevant to neurodegeneration [26,27]. SGTA, a co-chaperone protein, is implicated in AD due to its roles in apoptosis, synaptic transmission, protein homeostasis, and amyloid processing, which is central to AD pathology and progression [26,28].
SHROOM3 regulate axxonal guidance and cytoskeletal organization, which are critical for maintaining neuronal integrity in AD [29]; GJB4 encodes connexion proteins involved in gap junctions; its altered expression disrupts neuronal communication [29]; PCSK5 influences amyloid precursor protein (APP) processing, thereby affecting Aβ aggregation [30]; DYNC2H1, a dynein motor protein gene, is linked to intracellular transport and tau pathology [31]; TEKT4, associated with cytoskeletal organization, may influence synaptic stability [29]; and PRKCZ modulates synaptic plasticity and memory, correlating with cognitive decline in AD [29,31].
RIN3 impacts APP trafficking and Aβ clearance, while MMP2 and MMP11 promote extracellular matrix remodelling and neuroinflammation and may exacerbate neuronal damage [30]. KEAP1, on the other hand, regulates oxidative stress via NRF2 signalling, contributing to neuronal vulnerability [32]. While IL12B drives neuroinflammation through microglial activation [30], XBP1, a key regulator of the unfolded protein response (UPR), worsens endoplasmic reticulum stress and neuronal death in AD [30,32]. Furthermore, mitochondrial dysfunction is affected by ACO2, which impacts energy metabolism critical for neuronal survival [32]. Finally, C1QBP influences immune responses and synapse pruning, further contributing to neuroinflammation in AD [30]. Notably, our findings highlight the multifaceted genetic mechanisms underlying AD pathology, emphasizing the relevance of mRNA expression in these genes to shaping cognitive performance in individuals with the disease. Validating these associations experimentally and exploring their therapeutic potential remains critical for advancing our understanding of AD.
We used the Predictive Power Score (PPS) to evaluate the predictive relationships between mRNA expression and neuropsychological variables. Unlike traditional correlation analyses, PPS accounts for non-linear patterns and asymmetric associations [33,34]. This analysis identified mRNAs associated with cognitive performance in AD (Table 3 and Figure 2). Key transcripts are harboured in NTM2, GABRB3, HK1, TRIM7, SCAMP5, FOXF1, NT5C2, and CADM1, which are involved in mechanisms underlying AD pathology.
ENST00000378165 (NMT2) was associated with the FAST screening tool (Table 3). NMT2 encodes an enzyme crucial for cellular signalling and protein stability. NMT2 dysregulation may disrupt neuronal function and worsen proteostasis, impairing cognition, accelerating AD progression, and impairing memory and cognition. Protein modification pathways are increasingly implicated in neurodegenerative diseases, highlighting their potential role in AD pathogenesis [35,36,37].
GABRB3 is essential for inhibitory neurotransmission. We previously reported that the ENST00000311550 (GABRB3) was a key predictor of AD diagnosis [8]. Here, this mRNA contributes to performance in FAST, MoCA, and Verbal Fluency (Table 3). Altered GABRB3 expression may impair synaptic function, contributing to cognitive deficits in AD. Dysregulated GABAergic signalling has been associated with memory impairment and executive dysfunction, further implicating its role in AD pathology [29,37].
HK1, regulating glucose metabolism for neuronal energy, is crucial since impaired glucose metabolism is a feature of AD; HK1 dysregulation intensifies bioenergetic deficits and contributes to cognitive decline [35,38]. The finding that ENST00000643399 (HK1) predicts MoCA (Table 3) is critical for understanding cognitive impairment and early dementia signs in our population.
We identified that ENST00000274773 (TRIM7) has a significant predictive power of several neuropsychological tests (Table 3). TRIM7 is involved in protein degradation and immune responses. Thus, its dysregulation could amplify neuroinflammation and impair protein clearance pathways central to AD pathology. The role of TRIM7 in proteostasis highlights its potential as a therapeutic target [35,39].
SCAMP5 regulates vesicular trafficking critical for synaptic function. Altered expression impacts APP processing and Aβ production [29,37]. FOXF1, on the other hand, influences cellular differentiation and survival, and its dysregulation may impair neuronal development and intensify neurodegeneration observed in AD brains. The fact that mRNAs within this gene have relevant predictive power in BNT and MMSE (Table 3) highlights its role in the neuropsychological manifestations of AD.
ENST00000343289 (NT5C2) is an essential predictor of the MoCA test (Table 3). NT5C2 encodes a cytosolic 5’-nucleotidase involved in nucleotide metabolism. Impaired function could disrupt neuronal homeostasis and exacerbate oxidative stress in AD neurons [29,35], which may explain its association with this screening test in our sample. In addition, we identified ENST00000278483 (HIKESHI) may predict the results of both the Token and Stroop tests (Table 3). HIKESHI facilitates nuclear transport of heat shock proteins under stress conditions. Its dysregulation may impair proteostasis and protein aggregation, contributing to cognitive decline [38,39].
ENST00000300093 (PLK1) and ENST00000540200 (POLDIP2) were significant predictors of the Stroop test (Table 3). PLK1 regulates cell cycle progression and DNA damage repair. Altered expression may contribute to neuronal apoptosis observed in AD brains, impacting executive function [35,40]. POLDIP2 is involved in DNA replication and repair, such that impaired function increases genomic instability and intensify neurodegeneration observed in AD neurons, thus affecting executive function [35,40].
ENST00000375259 (SLC35D2) was identified as an essential predictor of Verbal Fluency (Table 3). SLC35D2 is involved in glycosylation processes critical for protein folding and stability. Thus, dysregulation of this gene could impact synaptic protein function relevant to memory impairment [37,39]. Interestingly, we identified that ENST00000427926 (CLTCL1) may predict the number of perseverant errors in the WCST (Table 3), which assesses cognitive flexibility and executive function. CLTCL1 regulates vesicular trafficking essential for synaptic communication. Hence, its dysregulation affects APP processing and contributes to Aβ accumulation observed in AD brains [29,38], which in turn impacts important cognitive processes.
CBX7 is a chromatin modifier that regulates gene expression and may affect neuronal survival mechanisms [41,42]. Altered expression of mRNAs within this gene may disrupt these processes, leading to deficits in language and naming abilities, while associations with TMT performance could reflect involvement in executive function/processing speed [43,44,45]. Changes in mRNA expression may impair these cognitive domains, contributing to the observed deficits in TMT performance (Table 1).
Finally, the ENST00000331581 (CADM1) was found to predict MoCA (Table 3). Interestingly, this transcript was upregulated in individuals with AD and identified as a key predictor of AD diagnosis [8]. CADM1 promotes synaptic adhesion and connectivity [29,46]. Thus, potential alterations in expression levels may impact synaptic integrity and memory function, both severely affected in AD pathology, and assessed by the MoCA test.
Previous studies have identified altered mRNA profiles in exosomes derived from AD patients compared to healthy controls [16,17,18,19], often focusing on blood and cerebrospinal fluid samples [47,48,49]. Our study builds upon this research by examining a cohort from Barranquilla, Colombia, with a unique genetic background and environmental exposure that differs from other AD communities in Colombia [50,51,52,53,54]. We found that specific mRNA transcripts were significantly correlated with performance on neuropsychological tests commonly used to assess cognitive function in AD, such as the BNT, TMT, and ROCFT (Figure 1 and Table 2). These correlations suggest potential mechanisms through which these transcripts may influence cognitive function in AD.
This study benefits from a well-characterized AD cohort and controls in Colombia, with comprehensive neuropsychological and advanced data analytics. Limitations include small sample size, potential regional bias, and a cross-sectional design. Future research should validate findings in larger, multi-centre, diverse cohorts using longitudinal designs to assess temporal relationships. Functional in vitro studies could clarify the causal role of identified mRNA transcripts in AD pathogenesis.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants

We recruited 30 participants (15 with a diagnosis of AD and 15 healthy controls) at the Instituto Colombiano de Neuropedagogía (ICN) in Barranquilla, Colombia, and collected data from clinical evaluations, family histories, comprehensive neurological and neuropsychological clinical examinations, and structured interviews. The ICN team determined the candidates’ eligibility based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test [55] and the inclusion criteria described elsewhere [7]. Individuals were classified as affected by AD if they had a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [56] between 0 and 18 points and met the DSM-5 criteria [57]. Individuals with other neurological or major psychiatric disorders, psychoactive substance use, excessive alcohol consumption, and inability to complete the clinical studies were excluded [7]. Healthy controls were non-family volunteers aged over 65, without suspected AD, and with an MMSE score between 19 and 29. Individuals with depression, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, other neurological disorders, major psychiatric illnesses, psychoactive substance use, or excessive alcohol consumption were excluded. The Universidad del Norte Ethics Committee approved this study (Project Approval Act #188 of 23 May 2019). Demographic and clinical data are summarized in Table 1.

4.2. Neuropsychological Assessment

We clinically characterized all participants using an exhaustive neuropsychological evaluation protocol described elsewhere [7,8]. In addition to the MoCA and MMSE tests, this protocol included the Boston Denomination Test [58,59], Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT) [60], Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) [61], Trail Making Test (TMT) [62,63], Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT) [64], Stroop Color and Word Test [65], Token Test [66], Benton’s Visual Retention Test (BVRT) [67], Clock Drawing Test [68], Memory Scale subtest of the Wisconsin Card Testing Test (WCST) [69], Geriatric Depression Screening Test [70], Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) [71], Barthel Functional Index [72], and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory [73]. All participants’ age at the beginning of the study, sex, educational level, marital status, weight, and height were also recorded through the clinical history. In individuals with AD, the AD age of onset (ADAOO) was also defined following previous studies [74,75]. Missing data, a common feature of clinical studies, were handled using the imputation method implemented in the missForest [76,77] package for R [78]. Subsequent statistical analyses were performed on the imputed dataset.

4.3. RNA Isolation and Extraction

Blood samples were collected to isolate circulating exosomes following the protocol previously described [7]. Exosome isolation was performed using the Total Exosome Isolation Reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Francisco, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, with minor modifications standardized at the Universidad del Norte laboratories in Barranquilla, Colombia. Isolated exxosomes were characterized using scanning electron microscopy. RNA extraction from the exosomes was conducted using a laboratory-standardized acid phenol–chloroform method [7]. Extracted RNA was resuspended in 50 µL of RNase-free water and treated with DNase I (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Francisco, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. RNA quality was assessed using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Francisco, CA, USA), measuring optical density (OD) ratios at 260/230 and 260/280 to ensure high-quality RNA suitable for downstream applications.

4.4. mRNA Microarray Study

A total of 30 RNA samples (15 from AD cases and 15 from healthy controls) were analyzed. RNA quality control, labelling, and hybridization followed Agilent’s singlx10-color microarray-based gene expression analysis protocol with minor modifications. Each RNA sample underwent reverse transcription to complementary DNA (cDNA), followed by amplification and transcription back to complementary RNA (cRNA). During this process, cyanine-3 (Cy3) fluorescent dye was incorporated using a random priming method. The labeled cRNAs were purified using the RNeasy Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Germantown, MD, USA) to eliminate reagent residues and excess dye. Quality control metrics included a cRNA concentration threshold of >1.65 μg and specific activity of >9 pmol Cy3/μg cRNA; samples failing these criteria were reprocessed.
For hybridization, 1 μg of labeled cRNA was fragmented, mixed with blocking and fragmentation buffers, and diluted with hybridization buffer. The hybridization solution was applied to lncRNA expression microarray plates and incubated for 17 h at 65 °C in an Agilent hybridization oven. Post-incubation, the arrays were washed and scanned using an Agilent G2505C scanner (Agilent Scientific Instruments, Santa Clara, CA, USA).
We used the Arraystar Human LncRNA Arrays V5 platform, which profiles 39,317 lncRNAs and 21,174 mRNA transcripts. Probes targeting specific exons or splice junctions ensured accurate transcript identification. Positive and negative control probes for housekeeping genes were included for quality assurance. Quantile normalization and data processing were performed using GeneSpring GX v12.1 software (Agilent Scientific Instruments, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Only mRNAs flagged as present or marginal in at least 15 of the 30 samples were selected for further analysis.

4.5. mRNA Signatures Linked to Neuropsychological Manifestations of AD

mRNAs correlated to neuropsychological manifestations of AD were identified using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) [79]. For the ith neuropsychological variable yi (i = 1, 2, …, 25), a GLM of the form yi ~ mRNAj + AD + Age + Sex + Schooling was fitted to the data as implemented in R [78]. In this model, mRNAj corresponds to the expression of the jth mRNA (j = 1, 2, …, 16,585), AD is a binary variable indicating the diagnosis of the participant (0: control; 1: case), Age is the age of the individual at the beginning of the study and Schooling is the years of education. The family distribution, a main component of a GLM, was selected according to the nature of the neuropsychological variable. Thus, neuropsychological variables representing counts were modelled using a Poisson distribution, and those of continuous nature were modelled using a Gamma distribution to account for potential skewness. Subsequently, the estimated regression coefficient β ^ j associated with mRNAj, was extracted from the fitted model along with its standard error S E ^ β ^ j . Values of β ^ j > 0 implies that the expression of the jth mRNA is positively correlated with the neuropsychological variable; β ^ j < 0 implies that the expression of the jth mRNA is negatively correlated; and β ^ j = 0 implies that there is no correlation (j = 1, 2, …, 16,580). Under the null hypothesis, the p-value for the jth mRNA is calculated as P j = 2 P r ( t n p > | t j | ) , where t n p is a t distribution with np = 30 − 6 = 24 degrees of freedom and t j = β ^ j S E ^ β ^ j is the test statistic. The resulting p-values were corrected for multiple testing using Bonferroni’s method [80] and the false discovery rate (FDR) [81,82,83]. mRNAs corrected p-values < 5% were statistically significantly correlated with a particular neuropsychological variable.

4.6. Predictive Power of mRNAs in AD

The Predictive Power Score (PPS) evaluates the predictive relationships between variables, addressing limitations of traditional correlation by accommodating non-linear patterns, categorical data, and asymmetric associations [33]. Unlike correlation and GLM-based analyses, PPS identifies directional predictive strength. In addition, the PPS quantifies the performance of a Decision Tree model in predicting a target variable via out-of-sample validation, benchmarking against naive approaches. We used the PPS as implemented in the ppsr [34] package of R to quantify the prediction ability of mRNAj (j = 1, 2, …, 16,585) on the neuropsychological variable yi (i = 1, 2, 3, …,25).

5. Conclusions

Our study provides novel insights into the relationship between exosome-derived mRNA signatures and neuropsychological manifestations in AD. We have identified specific mRNA transcripts that correlate with cognitive performance. These findings advance our understanding of AD pathogenesis’ molecular mechanisms and open new avenues for developing non-invasive diagnostic tools and targeted therapies. Further research is needed to validate these findings and translate them into clinical applications, ultimately improving the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of AD.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms26104897/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B., P.G.-G. and J.I.V.; methodology, O.M.V., C.S.-R., E.B., R.A., P.G.-G. and J.I.V.; software, D.A.B. and J.I.V.; validation, M.I.M.-H., O.M.V., M.A.-B., E.B., R.A., P.G.-G. and J.I.V.; formal analysis, D.A.B. and J.I.V.; investigation, E.B., M.I.M.-H., O.M.V., C.S.-R., R.A., L.C.M., P.G.-G. and J.I.V.; resources, M.I.M.-H., J.I.V. and P.G.-G.; data curation, D.A.B., M.I.M.-H. and J.I.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.-B. and J.I.V.; writing—review and editing, E.B., O.M.V., L.C.M., M.A.-B., P.G.-G. and J.I.V.; visualization, D.A.B. and J.I.V.; supervision, J.I.V.; project administration, P.G.-G. and J.I.V.; funding acquisition, M.I.M.-H., P.G.-G. and J.I.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the Ministery of Science, Technology and Innovation of Colombia (MINCIENCIAS), project “Nuevos ARN no codificantes exosomales y su papel en la patogénesis de la Enfermedad de Alzheimer”, code 121584468097, grant 844/2019, contract 416-2020, awarded to Grupo de Genética y Medicina Molecular and Grupo de Productividad y Competitividad, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia (project approval act #198 of 31 October 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals who participated voluntarily in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding authors. They are not publicly available due to the ongoing nature of the study and our commitment to protecting the privacy and confidentiality of our patients.

Acknowledgments

We express our highest appreciation to all individuals, their relatives, and caregivers who voluntarily participated in this study since its inception in 2019. Their contributions were invaluable to its success. The APC was funded by Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. As expected, the funders had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ADAlzheimer’s Disease
ADAOOAlzheimer’s Disease Age of Onset
AVMRAuditory–Verbal Memory Recognition
Amyloid-beta
BNTBoston Naming Test
circRNACircular RNA
EVsExtracellular Vesicles
FASTFunctional Assessment Screening Tool
GLMGeneralized Linear Model
lncRNALong Non-Coding RNA
MMSEMini-Mental State Examination
MoCAMontreal Cognitive Assessment
mRNAMessenger RNA
PPSPredictive Power Score
ROCFTRey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test
TMTTrail Making Test
WCSTWisconsin Card Sorting Test

References

  1. Breijyeh, Z.; Karaman, R. Comprehensive Review on Alzheimer’s Disease: Causes and Treatment. Molecules 2020, 25, 5789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nichols, E.; Steinmetz, J.D.; Vollset, S.E.; Fukutaki, K.; Chalek, J.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abdoli, A.; Abualhasan, A.; Abu-Gharbieh, E.; Akram, T.T.; et al. Estimation of the Global Prevalence of Dementia in 2019 and Forecasted Prevalence in 2050: An Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Public Health 2022, 7, e105–e125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mosquera-Heredia, M.I.; Morales, L.C.; Vidal, O.M.; Barceló, E.; Silvera-Redondo, C.; Vélez, J.I.; Garavito-Galofre, P. Exosomes: Potential Disease Biomarkers and New Therapeutic Targets. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Luo, D.; Liu, H.; Liu, H.; Wu, W.; Zhu, H.; Ge, W.; Ma, C. Long RNA Profiles of Human Brain Extracellular Vesicles Provide New Insights into the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Aging Dis. 2023, 14, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shobeiri, P.; Alilou, S.; Jaberinezhad, M.; Zare, F.; Karimi, N.; Maleki, S.; Teixeira, A.L.; Perry, G.; Rezaei, N. Circulating Long Non-Coding RNAs as Novel Diagnostic Biomarkers for Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0281784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Doxtater, K.; Tripathi, M.; Khan, M. Recent Advances on the Role of Long Non-Coding RNAs in Alzheimer’s Disease. Neural Regen. Res. 2020, 15, 2253–2254. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mosquera-Heredia, M.I.; Vidal, O.M.; Morales, L.C.; Silvera-Redondo, C.; Barceló, E.; Allegri, R.; Arcos-Burgos, M.; Vélez, J.I.; Garavito-Galofre, P. Long Non-Coding RNAs and Alzheimer’s Disease: Towards Personalized Diagnosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 7641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bolívar, D.A.; Mosquera-Heredia, M.I.; Vidal, O.M.; Barceló, E.; Allegri, R.; Morales, L.C.; Silvera-Redondo, C.; Arcos-Burgos, M.; Garavito-Galofre, P.; Vélez, J.I. Exosomal MRNA Signatures as Predictive Biomarkers for Risk and Age of Onset in Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 12293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ghosh, A.; Mizuno, K.; Tiwari, S.S.; Proitsi, P.; Gomez Perez-Nievas, B.; Glennon, E.; Martinez-Nunez, R.T.; Giese, K.P. Alzheimer’s Diseasx10-Related Dysregulation of MRNA Translation Causes Key Pathological Features with Ageing. Transl. Psychiatry 2020, 10, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Işık, M.; Beydemir, Ş. AChE MRNA Expression as a Possible Novel Biomarker for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease, and Its Association with Oxidative Stress. Arch. Physiol. Biochem. 2022, 128, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jakubauskienė, E.; Vilys, L.; Pečiulienė, I.; Kanopka, A. The Role of Hypoxia on Alzheimer’s Diseasx10-Related APP and Tau MRNA Formation. Gene 2021, 766, 145146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Phu Pham, L.H.; Chang, C.-F.; Tuchez, K.; Chen, Y. Assess Alzheimer’s Disease via Plasma Extracellular Vesiclx10-Derived MRNA. medRxiv 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Noor Eddin, A.; Hamsho, K.; Adi, G.; Al-Rimawi, M.; Alfuwais, M.; Abdul Rab, S.; Alkattan, K.; Yaqinuddin, A. Cerebrospinal Fluid MicroRNAs as Potential Biomarkers in Alzheimer’s Disease. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2023, 15, 1210191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Riscado, M.; Baptista, B.; Sousa, F. New RNA-Based Breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis and Therapeutics. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cheng, Y.; Zhou, X.; Zou, T.; Zhang, L.; Li, L.; Yang, C.; Ma, L. Plasma Long Non-Coding RNAs ASMTL-AS1, AP001363.1, AC005730.3 and AL133415.1 as a Potential Biomarker for Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurol Res. 2023, 45, 804–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alhenaky, A.; Alhazmi, S.; Alamri, S.H.; Alkhatabi, H.A.; Alharthi, A.; Alsaleem, M.A.; Abdelnour, S.A.; Hassan, S.M. Exosomal MicroRNAs in Alzheimer’s Disease: Unveiling Their Role and Pioneering Tools for Diagnosis and Treatment. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 6960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dong, X.; Zheng, D.; Nao, J. Circulating Exosome MicroRNAs as Diagnostic Biomarkers of Dementia. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2020, 12, 580199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Manna, I.; de Benedittis, S.; Quattrone, A.; Maisano, D.; Iaccino, E.; Quattrone, A. Exosomal MiRNAs as Potential Diagnostic Biomarkers in Alzheimer’s Disease. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, J.; Yue, B.L.; Huang, Y.Z.; Lan, X.Y.; Liu, W.J.; Chen, H. Exosomal RNAs: Novel Potential Biomarkers for Diseases—A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yoshino, Y.; Yamazaki, K.; Ozaki, Y.; Sao, T.; Yoshida, T.; Mori, T.; Mori, Y.; Ochi, S.; Iga, J.I.; Ueno, S.I. INPP5D MRNA Expression and Cognitive Decline in Japanese Alzheimer’s Disease Subjects. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2017, 58, 687–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tan, Y.J.; Ng, A.S.L.; Vipin, A.; Lim, J.K.W.; Chander, R.J.; Ji, F.; Qiu, Y.; Ting, S.K.S.; Hameed, S.; Lee, T.S.; et al. Higher Peripheral TREM2 MRNA Levels Relate to Cognitive Deficits and Hippocampal Atrophy in Alzheimer’s Disease and Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2017, 58, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sao, T.; Yoshino, Y.; Yamazaki, K.; Ozaki, Y.; Mori, Y.; Ochi, S.; Yoshida, T.; Mori, T.; Iga, J.I.; Ueno, S.I. MEF2C MRNA Expression and Cognitive Function in Japanese Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2018, 72, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bayraktar, A.; Lam, S.; Altay, O.; Li, X.; Yuan, M.; Zhang, C.; Arif, M.; Turkez, H.; Uhlén, M.; Shoaie, S.; et al. Revealing the Molecular Mechanisms of Alzheimer’s Disease Based on Network Analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Delhaye, S.; Jarjat, M.; Boulksibat, A.; Sanchez, C.; Tempio, A.; Turtoi, A.; Giorgi, M.; Lacas-Gervais, S.; Baj, G.; Rovere, C.; et al. Defects in AMPAR Trafficking and Microglia Activation Underlie Socio-Cognitive Deficits Associated to Decreased Expression of Phosphodiesterase 2 a. Neurobiol. Dis. 2024, 191, 106393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xu, Y. Role of PDE2A in Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Alzheimer’s Disease. Available online: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/10832468 (accessed on 9 April 2025).
  26. Kubota, S.; Doi, H.; Koyano, S.; Tanaka, K.; Komiya, H.; Katsumoto, A.; Ikeda, S.; Hashiguchi, S.; Nakamura, H.; Fukai, R.; et al. SGTA Associates with Intracellular Aggregates in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Mol. Brain 2021, 14, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Benarroch, R.; Austin, J.M.; Ahmed, F.; Isaacson, R.L. The Roles of Cytosolic Quality Control Proteins, SGTA and the BAG6 Complex, in Disease. Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 2019, 114, 265–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Philp, L.K.; Day, T.K.; Butler, M.S.; Laven-Law, G.; Jindal, S.; Hickey, T.E.; Scher, H.I.; Butler, L.M.; Tilley, W.D. Small Glutaminx10-Rich Tetratricopeptide Repeat-Containing Protein Alpha (SGTA) Ablation Limits Offspring Viability and Growth in Mice. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mathys, H.; Davila-Velderrain, J.; Peng, Z.; Gao, F.; Mohammadi, S.; Young, J.Z.; Menon, M.; He, L.; Abdurrob, F.; Jiang, X.; et al. Singlx10-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Nature 2019, 570, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Xiao, J.; Xiang, Y.; Ye, F. Analysis of Gene Expression Profiles in Alzheimer’s Disease Patients with Different Lifespan: A Bioinformatics Study Focusing on the Disease Heterogeneity. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2023, 15, 1072184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Avramopoulos, D.; Szymanski, M.; Wang, R.; Bassett, S. Gene Expression Reveals Overlap between Normal Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease Genes. Neurobiol. Aging 2011, 32, 2319.e27–2319.e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cohen, D.; Pilozzi, A.; Huang, X. Network Medicine Approach for Analysis of Alzheimer’s Disease Gene Expression Data. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wetschoreck, F. RIP Correlation. Introducing the Predictive Power Score. Available online: https://medium.com/data-science/rip-correlation-introducing-the-predictive-power-score-3d90808b9598 (accessed on 1 April 2025).
  34. van der Laken, P. Ppsr: Predictive Power Score. In CRAN: Contributed Packages; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  35. Arzouni, N.; Matloff, W.; Zhao, L.; Ning, K.; Toga, A.W. Identification of Dysregulated Genes for Late-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Using Gene Expression Data in Brain. J. Alzheimers Dis. Park. 2020, 10, 498. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kocinaj, A.; Chaudhury, T.; Uddin, M.S.; Junaid, R.R.; Ramsden, D.B.; Hondhamuni, G.; Klamt, F.; Parsons, L.; Parsons, R.B. High Expression of Nicotinamide N-Methyltransferase in Patients with Sporadic Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol. Neurobiol. 2021, 58, 1769–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Canchi, S.; Raao, B.; Masliah, D.; Rosenthal, S.B.; Sasik, R.; Fisch, K.M.; De Jager, P.L.; Bennett, D.A.; Rissman, R.A. Integrating Gene and Protein Expression Reveals Perturbed Functional Networks in Alzheimer’s Disease. Cell Rep. 2019, 28, 1103–1116.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abdelwahab, M.M.; Al-Karawi, K.A.; Semary, H.E. Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Microarray Gene Expression Data. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lee, T.; Lee, H. Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Blood Gene Expression Data. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. El-Gawady, A.; Makhlouf, M.A.; Tawfik, B.S.; Nassar, H. Machine Learning Framework for the Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease Using Gene Expression Data Based on Efficient Gene Selection. Symmetry 2022, 14, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rybak-Wolf, A.; Plass, M. RNA Dynamics in Alzheimer’s Disease. Molecules 2021, 26, 5113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, Q.; Li, J.; Weng, L. Identification and Validation of Aging-Related Genes in Alzheimer’s Disease. Front. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 905722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ashendorf, L.; Jefferson, A.L.; O’Connor, M.K.; Chaisson, C.; Green, R.C.; Stern, R.A. Trail Making Test Errors in Normal Aging, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2008, 23, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hafiz, N.J.; Lohse, A.; Haas, R.; Reiche, S.; Sedlaczek, L.; Brandl, E.J.; Riemer, T.G. Trail Making Test Error Analysis in Subjective Cognitive Decline, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer’s Dementia with and without Depression. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2023, 38, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ferris, J.; Greeley, B.; Yeganeh, N.M.; Rinat, S.; Ramirez, J.; Black, S.; Boyd, L. Exploring Biomarkers of Processing Speed and Executive Function: The Role of the Anterior Thalamic Radiations. Neuroimage Clin. 2022, 36, 103174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Liu, G.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, P.; Feng, R.; Jiang, N.; Chen, X.; Song, H.; Chen, Z. Cell Adhesion Molecules Contribute to Alzheimer’s Disease: Multiple Pathway Analyses of Two Genome-Wide Association Studies. J. Neurochem. 2012, 120, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tan, Y.J.; Wong, B.Y.X.; Vaidyanathan, R.; Sreejith, S.; Chia, S.Y.; Kandiah, N.; Ng, A.S.L.; Zeng, L. Altered Cerebrospinal Fluid Exosomal MicroRNA Levels in Young-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia. J. Alzheimers Dis. Rep. 2021, 5, 805–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. McKeever, P.M.; Schneider, R.; Taghdiri, F.; Weichert, A.; Multani, N.; Brown, R.A.; Boxer, A.L.; Karydas, A.; Miller, B.; Robertson, J.; et al. MicroRNA Expression Levels Are Altered in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Patients with Young-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol. Neurobiol. 2018, 55, 8826–8841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gui, Y.X.; Liu, H.; Zhang, L.S.; Lv, W.; Hu, X.Y. Altered MicroRNA Profiles in Cerebrospinal Fluid Exosome in Parkinson Disease and Alzheimer Disease. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 37043–37053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Arcos-Burgos, M.; Muenke, M. Genetics of Population Isolates. Clin. Genet. 2002, 61, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sepulveda-Falla, D.; Vélez, J.I.; Acosta-Baena, N.; Baena, A.; Moreno, S.; Krasemann, S.; Lopera, F.; Mastronardi, C.A.; Arcos-Burgos, M. Genetic Modifiers of Cognitive Decline in PSEN1 E280A Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2024, 20, 2873–2885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vélez, J.I.; Chandrasekharappa, S.C.; Henao, E.; Martinez, A.F.; Harper, U.; Jones, M.; Solomon, B.D.; Lopez, L.; Garcia, G.; Aguirre-Acevedo, D.C.; et al. Pooling/Bootstrap-Based GWAS (PbGWAS) Identifies New Loci Modifying the Age of Onset in PSEN1 p.Glu280Ala Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol. Psychiatry 2013, 18, 568–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Velez, J.I.; Lopera, F.; Sepulveda-Falla, D.; Patel, H.R.; Johar, A.S.; Chuah, A.; Tobon, C.; Rivera, D.; Villegas, A.; Cai, Y.; et al. APOE*E2 Allele Delays Age of Onset in PSEN1 E280A Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol. Psychiatry 2016, 21, 916–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Acosta-Baena, N.; Sepulveda-Falla, D.; Lopera-Gómez, C.M.; Jaramillo-Elorza, M.C.; Moreno, S.; Aguirrx10-Acevedo, D.C.; Saldarriaga, A.; Lopera, F. Prx10-Dementia Clinical Stages in Presenilin 1 E280A Familial Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Lancet Neurol. 2011, 10, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Nasreddine, Z.S.; Phillips, N.A.; Bédirian, V.; Charbonneau, S.; Whitehead, V.; Collin, I.; Cummings, J.L.; Chertkow, H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005, 53, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Folstein, M.F.; Robins, L.N.; Helzer, J.E. The Mini-Mental State Examination. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1983, 40, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; ISBN 0-89042-575-2. [Google Scholar]
  58. Allegri, R.F.; Villavicencio, A.F.; Taragano, F.E.; Rymberg, S.; Mangone, C.A.; Baumann, D. Spanish Boston Naming Test Norms. Clin. Neuropsychol. 1997, 11, 416–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fernández, A.L.; Fulbright, R.L. Construct and Concurrent Validity of the Spanish Adaptation of the Boston Naming Test. Appl. Neuropsychol. Adult 2015, 22, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Osterrieth, P.A. The Test of Copying a Complex Figure: A Contribution to the Study of Perception and Memory. Arch. Psychol. 1944, 30, 206–356. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bean, J. Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Rey AVLT. In Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 2174–2175. [Google Scholar]
  62. Reitan, R.M. The Relation of the Trail Making Test to Organic Brain Damage. J. Consult. Psychol. 1955, 19, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Reitan, R.M. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an Indicator of Organic Brain Damage. Percept. Mot. Skills 1958, 8, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Smith, A. Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Clin. Neuropsychol. 1973. [Google Scholar]
  65. Golden, C.J. Stroop Color and Word Test. Stoelting Company 1978.
  66. De Renzi, E.; Vignolo, L.A. The Token Test: A Sensitive Test to Detect Receptive Disturbances in Aphasics. Brain 1962, 85, 665–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Benton, A.L. Visuospatial Judgment: A Clinical Test. Arch. Neurol. 1978, 35, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Aprahamian, I.; Martinelli, J.E.; Neri, A.L.; Yassuda, M.S. The Clock Drawing Test A Review of Its Accuracy in Screening for Dementia. Dement. Neuropsychol. 2009, 3, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Grant, D.A.; Berg, E. A Behavioral Analysis of Degree of Reinforcement and Ease of Shifting to New Responses in a Weigl-Type Card-Sorting Problem. J. Exp. Psychol. 1948, 38, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Brink, T.L.; Yesavage, J.A.; Lum, O.; Heersema, P.H.; Adey, M.; Rose, T.L. Screening Tests for Geriatric Depression. Clin. Gerontol. 1982, 1, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Reisberg, B.; Ferris, S.H.; De Leon, M.J.; Crook, T. The Global Deterioration Scale for Assessment of Primary Degenerative Dementia. Am. J. Psychiatry 1982, 139, 1136–1139. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mahoney, F.I.; Barthel, D.W. Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md. State Med. J. 1965, 14, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  73. Cummings, J. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: Development and Applications. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol. 2020, 33, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Naj, A.C.; Jun, G.; Reitz, C.; Kunkle, B.W.; Perry, W.; Park, Y.S.; Beecham, G.W.; Rajbhandary, R.A.; Hamilton-Nelson, K.L.; Wang, L.-S.; et al. Effects of Multiple Genetic Loci on Age at Onset in Latx10-Onset Alzheimer Disease. JAMA Neurol. 2014, 71, 1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Saad, M.; Brkanac, Z.; Wijsman, E.M. Family-based Genome Scan for Age at Onset of Latx10-onset Alzheimer’s Disease in Whole Exome Sequencing Data. Genes. Brain Behav. 2015, 14, 607–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stekhoven, D.J.; Bühlmann, P. Missforest-Non-Parametric Missing Value Imputation for Mixed-Type Data. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Stekhoven, D.J. missForest: Nonparametric Missing Value Imputation Using Random Forest; R Package Version 1.4; p. 2022.
  78. R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  79. Dunn, P.K.; Smyth, G.K. Generalized Linear Models with Examples in R; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  80. Bonferroni, C.E. Teoria Statistica Delle Classi e Calcolo Delle Probabilità. Pubbl. Del R Ist. Super. Di Sci. Econ. E Commer. di Firenze 1936, 8, 3–62. [Google Scholar]
  81. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Vélez, J.I.; Correa, J.C.; Arcos-Burgos, M. A New Method for Detecting Significant P-Values with Applications to Genetic Data. Rev. Colomb. Estad. 2014, 37, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Shaffer, J.P. Multiple Hypothesis Testing. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1995, 46, 561–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Manhattan plots showing mRNA signatures correlated with neuropsychological variables in a sample of individuals with AD and healthy controls from Barranquilla, Colombia. The horizontal red line corresponds to Bonferroni’s threshold. BNT: Boston Naming Test. Other conventions are in Table 1.
Figure 1. Manhattan plots showing mRNA signatures correlated with neuropsychological variables in a sample of individuals with AD and healthy controls from Barranquilla, Colombia. The horizontal red line corresponds to Bonferroni’s threshold. BNT: Boston Naming Test. Other conventions are in Table 1.
Ijms 26 04897 g001
Figure 2. PPS distribution of mRNA signatures by neuropsychological test. BNT: Boston Naming Test. Other conventions are in Table 1.
Figure 2. PPS distribution of mRNA signatures by neuropsychological test. BNT: Boston Naming Test. Other conventions are in Table 1.
Ijms 26 04897 g002
Table 1. Neuropsychological characteristics of individuals included in this study.
Table 1. Neuropsychological characteristics of individuals included in this study.
VariableCasesControlsW ap-Value
Mean (SD)
 Age (years)77.5 (8.5)82.1 (8.6)900<0.001
 MMSE13.9 (9.5)25.2 (5.6)855<0.001
 MoCA5.5 (5.3)25.9 (2.9)224<0.001
 FAST4.5 (3.2)2.5 (0.6)19<0.001
 Boston Naming Test
 Spontaneous clues14.1 (11.6)37.5 (13.9)200.5<0.001
 Semantic clues0.7 (1.2)1.3 (1.4)138.50.248
 Total score14.8 (12.1)38.7 (14.2)201.5<0.001
 Verbal Fluency
 Letter “a”3.4 (2.8)11.2 (3.7)212.5<0.001
 Letter “c”4.5 (3.8)8.7 (4)1770.008
Phonological fluency
 Letter ”a”2.6 (3.4)8.6 (4.8)1910.001
 Letter “s”2.8 (2.8)8.3 (5.3)1790.006
 Letter “f”3.6 (3.8)8.2 (5.8)163.50.035
 Trail Making Test
 Part A115.5 (79.8)109 (77)1010.648
 Part B145.4 (130.8)233 (105)157.50.063
 Token test14.1 (10)26.2 (10.8)1870.002
 Lawton and Brody test1.7 (1.4)0.3 (0.8)175.50.003
 ROCFT
 Copy5.6 (9.2)24.7 (13.5)193<0.001
 Recall1.3 (2.4)6.3 (5.6)1810.004
 AVMR, “Yes”6.7 (6.4)11.7 (4.1)169.50.018
 AVMR, “No”7.3 (6.2)11.9 (5.2)1630.033
 Stroop test
 Words33.2 (17.3)60.1 (32.4)1780.007
 Colours20.3 (13)39.4 (22.2)1700.018
 Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
 Categories0.7 (0.9)2.6 (2.2)1700.015
 NPE25.8 (24.1)20.5 (29.9)890.339
 Perseverant errors26.1 (19.2)18.9 (12.9)87.50.309
 Correct responses25.1 (23.8)42.8 (40.1)1370.319
a Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon non-parametric statistic. The reported p-value was not adjusted for covariates. AVMR: Auditory-verbal memory recognition; FAST: Functional Assessment Screening Tool; MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NPE: Non-perseverant errors; ROCFT: Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure test.
Table 2. Top 10 mRNAs correlated with AD for each neuropsychological variable. Conventions as in Table 1.
Table 2. Top 10 mRNAs correlated with AD for each neuropsychological variable. Conventions as in Table 1.
TestTranscriptChrPosition aGene β ^   ( S E ^ β ^ ) ppBonferroni
 ROCFT
 CopyENST000003828302131,962,424KRTAP22-20.567 (0.076)6.74 × 10−141.12 × 10−9
ENST00000361033202,796,948TMEM239−1.384 (0.185)7.41 × 10−141.23 × 10−9
ENST00000380210921,349,834IFNA60.396 (0.053)8.14 × 10−141.35 × 10−9
ENST000002160372229,190,543XBP10.475 (0.064)1.06 × 10−131.76 × 10−9
ENST000003985761346,700,055LCP1−0.268 (0.037)3.64 × 10−136.04 × 10−9
ENST00000221566192,754,712SGTA−0.992 (0.137)4.74 × 10−137.86 × 10−9
ENST000003344561172,287,185PDE2A0.387 (0.054)5.11 × 10−138.48 × 10−9
ENST00000295201295,537,188TEKT41.205 (0.17)1.29 × 10−122.14 × 10−8
ENST000003602421866,465,317CCDC102B−0.639 (0.091)2.00 × 10−123.31 × 10−8
ENST0000054441312121,416,552HNF1A−1.399 (0.2)2.45 × 10−124.06 × 10−8
 RecallHBMT000008910552047,127,407CATG00000053459.1−0.845 (0.169)5.33 × 10−78.84 × 10−3
ENST00000339480135,225,342GJB4−0.852 (0.174)1.03 × 10−61.70 × 10−2
ENST00000545128978,505,560PCSK5−0.972 (0.205)2.08 × 10−63.45 × 10−2
ENST0000039809311102,980,304DYNC2H11.23 (0.261)2.46 × 10−64.08 × 10−2
ENST00000295201295,537,188TEKT41.375 (0.294)2.95 × 10−64.89 × 10−2
ENST0000037856711,981,909PRKCZ−1.004 (0.215)2.95 × 10−64.90 × 10−2
 BNT
 Spontaneous CluesENST000002164871492,980,118RIN30.453 (0.081)2.39 × 10−83.97 × 10−4
ENCT00000457686990,652,380CATG00000108922.10.554 (0.101)4.36 × 10−87.22 × 10−4
ENCT0000006151310134,202,355CATG00000001242.1−0.44 (0.081)5.67 × 10−89.40 × 10−4
ENST000002190701655,512,883MMP2−0.445 (0.084)1.15 × 10−71.91 × 10−3
ENCT000002289582119,913,597CATG00000044356.1−0.788 (0.159)6.86 × 10−71.14 × 10−2
ENST0000023434719840,960PRTN3−0.443 (0.09)8.98 × 10−71.49 × 10−2
ENST000002103139123,578,331PSMD5−0.243 (0.05)9.45 × 10−71.57 × 10−2
ENST0000021675614102,814,619CINP0.264 (0.054)1.13 × 10−61.87 × 10−2
ENST000002428191352,436,117CCDC70−0.498 (0.103)1.36 × 10−62.25 × 10−2
ENST00000004531817,396,286SLC7A2−0.366 (0.077)2.07 × 10−63.43 × 10−2
 TotalENCT0000006151310134,202,355CATG00000001242.1−0.458 (0.08)9.05 × 10−91.50 × 10−4
ENCT00000457686990,652,380CATG00000108922.10.552 (0.099)2.81 × 10−84.66 × 10−4
ENST00000004531817,396,286SLC7A2−0.396 (0.076)1.57 × 10−72.60 × 10−3
ENCT000002289582119,913,597CATG00000044356.1−0.808 (0.155)1.89 × 10−73.14 × 10−3
ENCT000003804536168,062,372CATG00000086946.10.377 (0.075)4.66 × 10−77.73 × 10−3
ENCT00000200728193,630,183CATG00000038258.10.264 (0.055)1.35 × 10−62.25 × 10−2
ENCT000000298051109,072,893CATG00000070137.10.256 (0.054)1.78 × 10−62.96 × 10−2
ENCT00000447643988,474,187CATG00000105979.1−0.342 (0.073)2.41 × 10−64.00 × 10−2
ENCT00000424376841,121,640CATG00000098647.10.351 (0.075)2.47 × 10−64.10 × 10−2
ENCT00000370852629,601,041CATG00000083443.10.261 (0.056)2.78 × 10−64.61 × 10−2
 TMT
 Part AENST0000022850612121,124,672MLEC−43.181 (5.064)1.00 × 10−81.66 × 10−4
 Part BMICT000002217202060,942,556CATG00000053936.1−86.275 (11.342)7.61 × 10−81.26 × 10−3
ENST000002632462243,265,777PACSIN2−69.407 (11.271)2.31 × 10−63.83 × 10−2
 Token testMICT00000383608Y18,943,870CATG00000114908.1−0.71 (0.134)1.15 × 10−71.91 × 10−3
ENST00000296043477,356,253SHROOM3−0.663 (0.13)3.16 × 10−75.24 × 10−3
ENST00000380534918,927,656SAXO10.728 (0.142)3.16 × 10−75.24 × 10−3
 Stroop test
 ColoursENCT000003092523134,030,483CATG00000066161.1−0.565 (0.098)7.53 × 10−91.25 × 10−4
ENST000002160372229,190,543XBP10.251 (0.044)1.06 × 10−81.76 × 10−4
ENST00000174618172,287,354MNT0.225 (0.04)1.44 × 10−82.39 × 10−4
ENST000002157432224,115,006MMP110.439 (0.085)2.61 × 10−74.34 × 10−3
ENST00000221566192,754,712SGTA−0.456 (0.09)4.03 × 10−76.68 × 10−3
ENST00000223369744,240,648YKT6−0.349 (0.07)6.00 × 10−79.95 × 10−3
ENST000002161332239,526,777CBX70.293 (0.062)2.17 × 10−63.60 × 10−2
ENST000002312285158,741,791IL12B−0.22 (0.047)2.32 × 10−63.85 × 10−2
ENCT000001936721860,987,564CATG00000036339.1−0.328 (0.07)2.59 × 10−64.29 × 10−2
ENCT000004312778144,959,539CATG00000101329.1−0.381 (0.082)2.98 × 10−64.94 × 10−2
 WordsENST000001711111910,596,796KEAP10.271 (0.043)2.40 × 10−103.98 × 10−6
ENST000002016471955,587,269EPS8L1−0.369 (0.065)1.46 × 10−82.43 × 10−4
ENST000002501608134,203,282WISP1−0.252 (0.047)7.78 × 10−81.29 × 10−3
ENST000002514531939,923,847RPS160.334 (0.066)4.46 × 10−77.39 × 10−3
ENST00000225698175,336,097C1QBP−0.223 (0.045)6.24 × 10−71.03 × 10−2
ENCT000003092523134,030,483CATG00000066161.1−0.371 (0.077)1.28 × 10−62.12 × 10−2
ENST00000230588646,761,127MEP1A−0.238 (0.049)1.43 × 10−62.37 × 10−2
ENST000002255671745,000,486GOSR2−0.345 (0.072)1.82 × 10−63.03 × 10−2
ENST000002162542241,865,129ACO20.267 (0.056)1.96 × 10−63.25 × 10−2
 WCST
 Correct responsesENCT000000127681156,638,559CATG00000020670.10.736 (0.085)4.37 × 10−187.25 × 10−14
ENCT0000000038911,874,595CATG00000071025.1−0.679 (0.08)2.46 × 10-174.09 × 10−13
ENCT00000004417138,891,158CATG00000115972.10.19 (0.023)4.03 × 10−166.68 × 10−12
ENCT0000000023211,138,890CATG00000019495.1−0.566 (0.082)4.07 × 10−126.75 × 10−8
ENCT0000000064414,077,807CATG00000116876.1−0.654 (0.095)6.99 × 10−121.16 × 10−7
ENCT00000002816125,046,862CATG00000062929.1−0.389 (0.061)1.34 × 10−102.22 × 10−6
ENCT00000001323110,960,567CATG00000015125.10.479 (0.078)6.95 × 10−101.15 × 10−5
ENCT00000003570130,996,263CATG00000087839.10.31 (0.051)1.32 × 10−92.19 × 10−5
ENCT00000002257119,234,224CATG00000038794.10.513 (0.092)2.23 × 10−83.70 × 10−4
ENCT00000004031135,331,806CATG00000107162.1−0.287 (0.059)1.02 × 10−61.69 × 10−2
 NPEENCT0000000027611,284,939CATG00000033020.1−1.178 (0.137)1.08 × 10−171.80 × 10−13
ENCT0000002078111,964,944CATG00000043697.1−0.899 (0.109)1.47 × 10−162.43 × 10−12
ENCT00000005948153,558,713CATG00000001175.10.614 (0.083)1.37 × 10−132.28 × 10−9
ENCT000000204051984,575CATG00000042982.1−0.479 (0.068)2.20 × 10−123.64 × 10−8
ENCT00000004031135,331,806CATG00000107162.1−0.426 (0.069)6.99 × 10−101.16 × 10−5
ENCT0000000064414,077,807CATG00000116876.1−0.55 (0.102)7.09 × 10−81.18 × 10−3
ENCT0000002044511,087,776CATG00000043113.10.752 (0.14)7.36 × 10−81.22 × 10−3
ENCT00000002816125,046,862CATG00000062929.1−0.374 (0.07)9.87 × 10−81.64 × 10−3
ENCT000000182101225,841,146CATG00000037190.10.258 (0.051)3.41 × 10−75.65 × 10−3
ENCT000000296561104,998,991CATG00000069026.1−0.543 (0.115)2.43 × 10−64.03 × 10−2
 Perseverant errorsENCT000002289582119,913,597CATG00000044356.1−0.731 (0.135)6.09 × 10−81.01 × 10−3
ENCT000000451411038,027,225CATG00000112585.10.453 (0.084)7.49 × 10−81.24 × 10−3
ENCT000002721512146,270,031CATG00000056264.1−0.37 (0.071)1.83 × 10−73.03 × 10−3
ENCT000002634902061,077,116CATG00000053945.10.626 (0.124)4.77 × 10−77.91 × 10−3
ENCT00000474207X2,742,248CATG00000112964.1−0.361 (0.073)6.42 × 10−71.07 × 10−2
ENCT000004312778144,959,539CATG00000101329.10.422 (0.088)1.47 × 10−62.44 × 10−2
ENCT000001130771355,351,449CATG00000014934.10.49 (0.103)1.92 × 10−63.18 × 10−2
ENST00000055682X73,952,691NEXMIF−0.323 (0.068)2.28 × 10−63.78 × 10−2
ENST000000138071945,916,692ERCC1−0.383 (0.081)2.30 × 10−63.81 × 10−2
ENCT000002026971917,008,342CATG00000038771.10.393 (0.083)2.43 × 10−64.02 × 10−2
a UCSC GRCh37/hg19 coordinates. BNT: Boston Naming Test.
Table 3. mRNAs with the highest PPS for each neuropsychological test. Conventions as in Table 2.
Table 3. mRNAs with the highest PPS for each neuropsychological test. Conventions as in Table 2.
VariableTranscriptChrPositionGenePPS
 AVMR
 NoENST00000295268498,480,027STPG20.295
ENST00000474844146,805,849NSUN40.295
ENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.293
ENST00000623276628,234,931ZSCAN260.289
ENST00000317907232,853,129TTC270.273
 YesENST000003073953128,779,610GP90.347
ENST000002996081866,340,925TMX30.331
ENST00000609883X71,347,574RTL50.329
ENST000003430539140,149,625NELFB0.322
ENST000004092992032,290,560PXMP40.316
 BNT
 Spontaneous cluesENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.391
ENST000003619001575,287,939SCAMP50.298
ENST0000037558113113,760,121F70.287
ENST000003687511153,065,611SPRR2E0.274
ENST000005241401916,830,791NWD10.264
 Semantic cluesENST00000517870153,099,016SHISAL2A0.374
ENST000006223391104,159,433AMY2A0.361
ENST0000033023314105,952,654CRIP10.336
ENST00000254691540,841,286CARD60.320
ENST000004097901611,038,345CLEC16A0.311
 TotalENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.386
ENST000003619001575,287,939SCAMP50.304
ENST0000037558113113,760,121F70.292
ENST000002624261686,544,133FOXF10.275
ENST00000323853296,940,074SNRNP2000.267
 FASTENST000003781651015,149,865NMT20.271
ENST000003115501526,788,693GABRB30.227
ENST000006112571734,493,061TBC1D3B0.209
ENST000006433991071,038,252HK10.167
ENST000002901581745,727,204KPNB10.160
 Lawton and BrodyENST000002164421467,804,788ATP6V1D0.306
ENST00000297770868,334,307CPA60.308
ENST000003182253126,268,516C3orf220.315
ENST00000250056176,347,761PIMREG0.341
ENST00000299367631,895,254C20.430
 MMSEENST000005284941146,639,150ATG130.221
ENST000003043854153,539,784TMEM1540.232
ENST00000394152799,214,571ZSCAN250.240
ENST000002624261686,544,133FOXF10.247
ENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.292
 MoCAENST000003115501526,788,693GABRB30.647
ENST0000034328910104,847,775NT5C20.439
ENST00000340116186739ENOSF10.428
ENST0000033158111115,047,015CADM10.425
FTMT264000038901667,267,859FHOD10.423
 Phonological fluency
 Letter “a”ENST000003557901072,058,729LRRC200.255
ENST000006112571734,493,061TBC1D3B0.235
ENST000003822581324,153,499TNFRSF190.224
ENST00000379731933,110,635B4GALT10.224
ENST000003745109113,065,867TXNDC80.222
 Letter “f”ENST000003557901072,058,729LRRC200.297
ENST00000296043477,356,253SHROOM30.277
ENST00000259883628,249,349PGBD10.242
ENST000003409131254,674,539HNRNPA10.231
HBMT000013487717140,772,165TMEM178B0.228
 Letter “s”ENST00000284268514,704,909ANKH0.224
ENST000005983571945,842,445L47234.10.215
ENST0000022299072,291,405SNX80.211
ENST000003557901072,058,729LRRC200.206
ENST000003053663149,086,809TM4SF10.206
 ROCFT
 CopyENCT00000073979111,403,334BRSK20.336
ENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.327
ENST000003102481248,595,866OR10AD10.300
ENST0000041870312110,220,890TRPV40.298
ENST000003004331748,348,767TMEM920.293
 RecallENST000003345711474,416,996COQ60.330
ENST00000578812178,282,463RPL260.316
ENST000003102481248,595,866OR10AD10.301
ENST000003586071918,699,535REX1BD0.288
ENST0000038272344,861,393MSX10.285
 Stroop test
 ColorsENST000002784831186,013,265HIKESHI0.323
ENST000003358521156,213,112PAQR60.264
ENST00000283928727,870,192JAZF10.237
MICT000001554301776,171,134TK10.230
ENST000003000931623,690,143PLK10.215
 WordsMICT000001554301776,171,134TK10.249
ENST000002784831186,013,265HIKESHI0.217
ENST000005402001726,674,203POLDIP20.205
ENST00000378981X30,261,847MAGEB10.204
HBMT000006112331775,249,896CATG00000032482.10.194
 TMT
 Part AENST000003028232204,732,509CTLA40.250
ENST00000428112147,024,371MKNK10.238
MICT000001566191779,759,048GCGR0.219
ENST000002917002148,018,875S100B0.216
ENST000003549053190,146,444TMEM2070.215
 Part BENST000003043854153,539,784TMEM1540.421
ENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.414
ENST000002410511133,037,410DEPDC70.302
ENST00000498273162,660,503L1TD10.283
ENST00000398399386,987,119VGLL30.273
 Token testENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.254
ENST000003043854153,539,784TMEM1540.215
ENST000002784831186,013,265HIKESHI0.212
ENST0000037558113113,760,121F70.208
ENST000003018381170,049,269FADD0.202
 Verbal Fluency
 Letter “a”ENST0000037558113113,760,121F70.298
ENST00000379052617,281,577RBM240.272
ENST0000039709571,094,921GPR1460.271
ENST000003115501526,788,693GABRB30.262
ENST000004275001155,204,350GBA0.262
 Letter “c”ENST000002747735180,620,924TRIM70.286
ENST00000375259999,082,992SLC35D20.226
ENST000003671751204,586,298LRRN20.220
ENST000006118701676,311,176CNTNAP40.215
ENST0000045709176,537,405GRID2IP0.205
 WCST
 CategoriesENST0000025649535,020,801BHLHE400.316
HBMT000006112331775,249,896CATG00000032482.10.285
ENST00000379731933,110,635B4GALT10.264
ENST00000230640554,603,588MTREX0.254
ENST00000404371210,923,519PDIA60.245
 Correct responsesENST00000230640554,603,588MTREX0.291
ENST00000281961239,893,059TMEM178A0.281
ENST000002432533127,771,212SEC61A10.268
ENST00000453960X153,295,685MECP20.267
ENST000006088422218,893,866DGCR60.266
 NPEENST0000026072310124,030,821BTBD160.252
ENST000003604281828,569,974DSC30.249
ENST000002674361450,709,152L2HGDH0.245
ENST000003450806105,404,923LIN28B0.241
ENST000002929071936,641,824COX7A10.237
 Perseverant errorsENST000002554651337,006,495CCNA10.291
ENST000005411351161,197,528AP003108.20.239
ENST00000375460117,575,593PADI30.238
ENST00000305632772,981,863TBL20.234
ENST000004279262219,166,986CLTCL10.222
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barceló, E.; Mosquera-Heredia, M.I.; Vidal, O.M.; Bolívar, D.A.; Allegri, R.; Morales, L.C.; Silvera-Redondo, C.; Arcos-Burgos, M.; Garavito-Galofre, P.; Vélez, J.I. Deficits of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuropsychological Architecture Correlate with Specific Exosomal mRNA Expression: Evidence of a Continuum? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 4897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26104897

AMA Style

Barceló E, Mosquera-Heredia MI, Vidal OM, Bolívar DA, Allegri R, Morales LC, Silvera-Redondo C, Arcos-Burgos M, Garavito-Galofre P, Vélez JI. Deficits of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuropsychological Architecture Correlate with Specific Exosomal mRNA Expression: Evidence of a Continuum? International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025; 26(10):4897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26104897

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barceló, Ernesto, María I. Mosquera-Heredia, Oscar M. Vidal, Daniel A. Bolívar, Ricardo Allegri, Luis C. Morales, Carlos Silvera-Redondo, Mauricio Arcos-Burgos, Pilar Garavito-Galofre, and Jorge I. Vélez. 2025. "Deficits of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuropsychological Architecture Correlate with Specific Exosomal mRNA Expression: Evidence of a Continuum?" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26, no. 10: 4897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26104897

APA Style

Barceló, E., Mosquera-Heredia, M. I., Vidal, O. M., Bolívar, D. A., Allegri, R., Morales, L. C., Silvera-Redondo, C., Arcos-Burgos, M., Garavito-Galofre, P., & Vélez, J. I. (2025). Deficits of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuropsychological Architecture Correlate with Specific Exosomal mRNA Expression: Evidence of a Continuum? International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26(10), 4897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26104897

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop