Background/Objectives: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and low bone mineral density (BMD) frequently coexist, but whether they show reproducible concordant blood-transcriptomic signals remains unclear. We conducted a retrospective computational study to identify cross-phenotype expression patterns and explore their biological context. Methods: One low-versus-high-BMD monocyte cohort and two AD whole-blood cohorts were used to derive six directionally concordant candidate genes. Repeated nested cross-validation provided internal predictive characterization, followed by independent AD evaluation in GSE140829 and exploratory osteoporosis evaluation in GSE56116. Gene–immune analyses, leukocyte-composition sensitivity analyses, Mendelian randomization, WGCNA, donor-aware single-cell analysis, virtual knockout, and direction-constrained compound prioritization were used as complementary exploratory analyses. Results: The candidates were FOXO3, IL1R2, WWP1, PDPK1, DPP8, and TSNAX. In GSE140829, all six retained their discovery directions, but only IL1R2 passed candidate-level FDR correction; the six-gene and robust-core scores showed modest discrimination (AUCs 0.601 and 0.610). Adjustment for inferred leukocyte composition attenuated the IL1R2 effect, but it remained FDR-supported using both CIBERSORT-derived (FDR = 0.00483) and xCell2-derived (FDR = 0.0140) composition covariates. Mendelian randomization yielded no FDR-supported causal estimate. Network, single-cell, virtual-knockout, and compound-prioritization results were exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Conclusions: Six blood-transcriptomic signals showed directional concordance between low BMD and AD, with IL1R2 providing the strongest independent AD evidence after leukocyte-composition sensitivity analyses. These findings do not establish a disease-specific shared causal mechanism, a clinically useful biomarker, or a therapeutic strategy. Prospective, protein-level, and functional validation is required before clinical or therapeutic application can be considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: