Mendelian randomization and case-control analysis reveals higher selenoprotein levels reduce Alzheimer's disease risk, suggesting potential neuroprotective biomarkers and therapeutic targets.
Background Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder resulting from a complex interplay of multiple factors. Recent hypotheses suggest a potential role of selenium and selenoproteins in AD pathogenesis. However, the causality relationship between them remains to be elucidated. Objective This study investigates the causal link between selenoproteins and AD risk. Methods We analyzed the data by leveraging genome-wide association studies from European cohorts (90,338 AD patients and 1,036,225 controls) and expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) from eQTLGen (31,684 individuals) and GTEx v8 (838 individuals). Mendelian randomization and summary data-based Mendelian randomization were applied to assess the potential causal associations between selenoproteins and AD. To further confirm these genetic associations at the clinical level, we conducted a case-control study to evaluate the levels of four differentially expressed selenoproteins in peripheral blood in individuals with AD and cognitively normal controls. Results Our analysis revealed that four selenoproteins, including selenoprotein S (SEPH2) and selenoprotein M (SELENOM), glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) and thioredoxin reductase 2 (TXNRD2), were correlated with a decreased risk of AD. The levels of GPX4, SELENOM, and TXNRD2 were found to be significantly downregulated in AD patients compared to controls in the case-control validation study, supporting the change identified in our genetic analysis. Conclusions This study provides genetic and clinical evidence that specific selenoproteins are associated with a decreased risk of AD. The findings highlight the potential role of these proteins in AD pathophysiology and suggest their promise as biomarkers or therapeutic targets, warranting further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: