Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Jul 26;19(7):e0304528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304528

Genome wide association study of clinical duration and age at onset of sporadic CJD

Holger Hummerich 1, Helen Speedy 1, Tracy Campbell 1, Lee Darwent 1, Elizabeth Hill 1, Steven Collins 2, Christiane Stehmann 2, Gabor G Kovacs 3,4,5, Michael D Geschwind 6, Karl Frontzek 7, Herbert Budka 5, Ellen Gelpi 5, Adriano Aguzzi 7, Sven J van der Lee 8,9,10, Cornelia M van Duijn 11,12, Pawel P Liberski 13, Miguel Calero 14, Pascual Sanchez-Juan 15, Elodie Bouaziz-Amar 16, Jean-Louis Laplanche 16, Stéphane Haïk 17,18, Jean-Phillipe Brandel 17,18, Angela Mammana 19, Sabina Capellari 19,20, Anna Poleggi 21, Anna Ladogana 21, Maurizio Pocchiari 21, Saima Zafar 22,23, Stephanie Booth 24, Gerard H Jansen 25, Aušrinė Areškevičiūtė 26, Eva Løbner Lund 26,27, Katie Glisic 28, Piero Parchi 19,20, Peter Hermann 22,29, Inga Zerr 22,29, Brian S Appleby 28, Jiri Safar 30, Pierluigi Gambetti 30, John Collinge 1, Simon Mead 1,*
Editor: Gianluigi Zanusso31
PMCID: PMC11280162  PMID: 39079175

Abstract

Human prion diseases are rare, transmissible and often rapidly progressive dementias. The most common type, sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), is highly variable in clinical duration and age at onset. Genetic determinants of late onset or slower progression might suggest new targets for research and therapeutics. We assembled and array genotyped sCJD cases diagnosed in life or at autopsy. Clinical duration (median:4, interquartile range (IQR):2.5–9 (months)) was available in 3,773 and age at onset (median:67, IQR:61–73 (years)) in 3,767 cases. Phenotypes were successfully transformed to approximate normal distributions allowing genome-wide analysis without statistical inflation. 53 SNPs achieved genome-wide significance for the clinical duration phenotype; all of which were located at chromosome 20 (top SNP rs1799990, pvalue = 3.45x10-36, beta = 0.34 for an additive model; rs1799990, pvalue = 9.92x10-67, beta = 0.84 for a heterozygous model). Fine mapping, conditional and expression analysis suggests that the well-known non-synonymous variant at codon 129 is the obvious outstanding genome-wide determinant of clinical duration. Pathway analysis and suggestive loci are described. No genome-wide significant SNP determinants of age at onset were found, but the HS6ST3 gene was significant (pvalue = 1.93 x 10−6) in a gene-based test. We found no evidence of genome-wide genetic correlation between case-control (disease risk factors) and case-only (determinants of phenotypes) studies. Relative to other common genetic variants, PRNP codon 129 is by far the outstanding modifier of CJD survival suggesting only modest or rare variant effects at other genetic loci.

Introduction

Human prion diseases are rare and often rapidly progressive dementia disorders with no known treatments that slow the disease process. The most common type, sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), occurs at a relatively uniform annual incidence of 1-2/million, equating to a lifetime risk of approximately 1:5000 [1]. The clinical presentation and progression of the disorder is remarkably variable both in terms of the initial symptoms and signs, age at onset and clinical duration [24]. Patients typically present in late middle or old age but have been reported in adolescence and early adulthood, and at the extremes of old age [57]. The median clinical duration is usually reported as five months with a range of only a few weeks to several years [2]. Ability to estimate the likely clinical duration could help with timely decisions about care [8].

Prions are proteinaceous pathogens formed of host prion protein (PrP) which cause mammalian prion diseases like bovine spongiform encephalopathy, sheep scrapie, chronic wasting disease of cervids, and the human disorders [9]. The recently determined structures of mouse and hamster prions reveals assemblies of PrP in a parallel in-register beta sheet structure with two domains [10, 11], in marked contrast to the predominant alpha-helices of normal cellular PrP [12]. Prions are thought to replicate by a process of binding of normal cellular PrP, conformational change and subsequently aggregate fission. In several model systems, incubation time of prion disease is influenced by PrP gene expression, primary sequence and polymorphisms, as well as prion strains [13], thought to be conferred by structural variation of the pathogen [14]. Experiments using animal or cellular model systems have led to proposals of several possible non-PrP mechanisms of toxicity in prion diseases, involving PrP binding partners on the cell surface and downstream intracellular changes [1517]; however, their relevance to the human diseases is yet to be determined.

Human epidemiological and genetic studies have identified factors that associate with survival time in sCJD [2, 8, 18, 19], including demographic factors, prion protein genotype, molecular strain typing of protease-resistant prion protein by Western blot analysis, and a range of biofluid, tissue, imaging, and neurophysiological biomarkers [20]. Many biomarkers simply measure the rate or extent of neuronal injury, loss, or dysfunction, or immune cell or glial responses, whereas genetic associations are implicitly causal of modified clinical phenotypes. In this study, we sought to determine the effects of genome-wide common genetic variation on key clinical phenotypes of sCJD, to develop evidence of modifiers relevant to human prion diseases that might benefit understanding of disease processes and generate new ideas for therapeutics.

Materials and methods

Diagnosis and clinical phenotypes

Details of the contributing sites and diagnostic criteria were given in a previous publication [19]. In short, all patient participants were deceased and gained a diagnosis in life of probable CJD or definite CJD after a post-mortem examination (using contemporary epidemiological criteria which changed over the recruitment period 1990–2019). “Probable CJD” is an epidemiological term that now equates to an almost certain diagnosis of CJD post-mortem (e.g. [21]). Age at clinical onset was given to the nearest month. Clinical duration was based on the examining physician’s impression of the date of onset of the first symptom that subsequently was thought to be a component of the disease syndrome until death in months.

Samples used in this study were obtained over several decades and the data were accessed from January 2023 until now.

Genotyping and quality control

In addition to 4110 samples previously reported, genotyped on an Illumina OmniExpress array [19], 819 new samples were genotyped using Illumina’s Global Screening Array. Standard sample and genotyping quality control was performed using PLINK v1.90b3v, which generated 6,308,901 autosomal SNPs of high quality. Samples with a call rate below 98% and population outliers identified via multidimensional scaling were removed. Additionally, related samples (Pi_Hat > 0.1875) were discarded. Only autosomal SNPs with a genotyping rate of >99%, a minor allele frequency ≥ 0.01 and SNPs not deviating from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P>10−4) were retained. SNPs of A/T or G/C transversion or those which showed deviation from heterozygosity mean (±3 SD) were excluded. To ensure consistency with the Michigan Imputation Server pipeline the target VCF files were checked against the 1000 Genomes Project reference panel (https://faculty.washington.edu/browning/conform-gt.html/). Genotypes were imputed using the Michigan Imputation Server (using Minimac4 assuming a mixed population, HRC r1.1 2016 (Haplotype Reference Consortium) as reference panel and Eagle 2.4 for phasing) [22]. A post-imputation QC analysis was carried out and SNPs with an r2 threshold lower than 0.3 (removing 70% of poorly imputed SNPs) were excluded.

Statistical analysis

SNPTEST (v2.5.2) was used to perform association and conditional analysis with an additive and heterozygous logistic regression model, using sex, contributing site and 10 population covariates generated with PLINK (v1.90b3v; www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/). Genetic correlation between this (using duration as phenotype) and the previously conducted sCJD case-control study [19] was performed using LDSC [23], a software tool for linkage disequilibrium (LD) score and heritability estimation using summary statistics. Meta-analysis was performed using METAL combining the previously published GWAS case-control data [19] and the case-only data described here using summary test statistics as input (6,314,883 SNPs in the union list) and adopting the sample-based approach by combining z-scores across samples in a weighted sum proportional to study sample sizes. FUMA [24], using an integrated Magma gene-based and gene-set analysis on the GWAS summary data, was utilised to perform pathway analysis to identify genes and pathways associated with sCJD risk. FUMA also provides information about chromatin interaction, expression patterns and shared molecular functions between genes. MAGMA software was also utilised for gene-based / gene-set analysis [25]. Power analysis was performed using R functions taken from the Github site https://github.com/kaustubhad/gwas-power provided by Kaustubh Adhikari (UCL Division of Biosciences, University College London).

Ethics

The research project has approval from the NHS Health Research authority (London—Harrow Research Ethics Committee, London, UK); the REC reference is 05/Q0505/113. Written informed consent has been obtained.

Results

We performed the association analysis with 3773 (duration as phenotype; median:4.0, IQR:2.5–9 (months)) and 3767 (age at onset as phenotype; median:67, IQR:61–73 (years)). cases of probable or definite sCJD by contemporary diagnostic criteria either included in a previous paper from the collaborative group [19], or newly genotyped on Illumina’s Global Screening Array (Table 1). All patients were deceased.

Table 1. Number of samples used in the association test from 12 countries (duration / age) with interquartile range and median.

Country N (duration) N (age) Median (duration) IQR (duration) Median (age) IQR (age)
Australia 22 22 2.05 1.87 67 12.5
Austria 44 44 4.5 5.87 72 7
Canada 133 133 4 5 67 14
France 95 95 4 4 68 13
Germany 798 792 6 8 66 12
Italy 554 554 5 7 67 13
Netherlands 126 126 3.94 4.02 66.5 13
Poland 42 42 3 2.88 63.5 9.25
Spain 74 74 3.45 4.25 69 13.75
Switzerland 35 35 2.69 2.91 70 13.5
UK 951 951 5 6.95 67 12
USA 899 899 3 5 67 13
Total 3773 3767        

Genotype doses were imputed using the Michigan Imputation Server [22], resulting in 6,308,901 SNPs passing quality control.

The median age / duration for men was 67 years and 3.8 months respectively and 67 years and 4.0 months for women. Median clinical duration (2.0–6.0 months) and age at onset (63.5–72 years) varied by site, so this was included as a covariate in the analysis. Phenotypes were modelled as normally distributed quantitative traits following transformation using methods developed by Box and Cox [26] illustrated as histograms and QQ plots (Figs 1 and 2; S1 Fig). Association analysis omitting sex, age or country or any combination as covariates did not show any significant difference in terms of outcome. Principal components analysis was used to exclude cases with distinct ancestry (n = 54) and did not suggest any strong effects of ancestry on the outcomes of interest (S2 and S3 Figs).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Histograms for phenotypes duration before (A) and after (B) Box-Cox transformation and age before (C) and after (D) Box-Cox transformation.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Quantile-Quantile plots for phenotypes duration before (A) and after (B) Box-Cox transformation and age before (C) and after (D) Box-Cox transformation.

Additive and heterozygous genetic models were run genome-wide in SNPTEST with sex, contributing site and genetic ancestry covariates (see Methods) without any statistical inflation (lambda = 1.000 / 1.000 for clinical duration / age) as illustrated with QQ plots in Fig 3 (duration phenotype) and Fig 4 (age phenotype). 53 SNPs achieved genome-wide significance (P<5x10-8) for the clinical duration phenotype (additive model) (Fig 5 and S1 Table), all at the PRNP locus (top SNP rs1799990, pvalue = 3.45x10-36, beta = 0.34 for additive model; rs1799990, pvalue = 9.92x10-67, beta = 0.84 for heterozygous model, Figs 6 and 7). PRNP rs1799990 was the obvious outstanding genome-wide candidate determinant of clinical duration.

Fig 3. Quantile-Quantile plot with duration as phenotype.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Quantile-Quantile plot with age as phenotype.

Fig 4

Fig 5. Manhattan plot with clinical duration as phenotype.

Fig 5

(red line indicating genome-wide significance of 5x10-8; blue line indicating suggestive genome-wide significance (5x10-8 > pvalue < 1x10-5)).

Fig 6. Regional association plot at PRNP locus with clinical duration as phenotype (additive model).

Fig 6

Fig 7. Regional association plot at PRNP locus with clinical duration as phenotype (heterozygous model).

Fig 7

Of 68 cis-eQTL SNPs associated with PRNP expression in various brain tissues (obtained from GTEx); none were present in the list of 53 SNPs achieving genome-wide significance (duration phenotype). 50 of these eQTL SNPs for PRNP passed QC, all were P>0.001 (duration phenotype). No genome-wide significant SNPs remained after conditioning for rs1799990 codon 129 (Fig 8 and S4 Fig). There were 51 suggestive associated SNPs (5x10-8 > pvalue<1x10-5, including at regions near to HDHD5 (chromosome 22), FHIT (chromosome 3) and EREG (chromosome 4) (S2 Table and S5S7 Figs). There were no significant gene-based associations of clinical duration apart from PRNP (MAGMA and FUMA) (Tables 2 and 3).

Fig 8. Regional association plot at PRNP locus for conditional analysis on SNP rs1799990 with clinical duration as phenotype (additive model).

Fig 8

Table 2. Top 10 genes identified by MAGMA (standalone) gene analysis (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with duration as phenotype.

Gene NCBI Gene ID Chr Start (hg19) Stop (hg19) NSNPS N ZSTAT Pvalue Bonf. corr. Pvalue
PRNP 5621 20 4641797 4707235 189 3773 6.11 5.00 x 10−10 9.02 x 10−6
ANP32E 81611 1 150165717 150233504 82 3773 4.15 1.64 x 10−5 0.31
CA14 23632 1 150204554 150262478 59 3773 3.92 4.38 x 10−5 0.79
TMEM121B 27439 22 17572189 17627257 148 3773 3.90 4.81 x 10−5 0.87
HDHD5 27440 22 17593410 17671177 299 3773 3.89 5.10 x 10−5 0.92
IL17RA 23765 22 17540849 17621584 185 3773 3.85 5.98 x 10−5 1
CNTN3 5067 3 74286719 74688587 845 3773 3.58 1.70 x 10−4 1
APH1A 51107 1 150212799 150266609 57 3773 3.54 2.03 x 10−4 1
U2SURP 23350 3 142695366 142804567 170 3773 3.50 2.36 x 10−4 1
FZD8 8325 10 35902177 35955362 83 3773 3.47 2.58 x 10−4 1

(NSNPS = number of SNPs annotated to a gene; N = number of samples; ZSTAT = Z-score for the gene, based on its p-value)

Table 3. Top 10 genes identified by FUMA gene analysis (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with duration as phenotype.

Gene Chr Start (hg19) Stop (hg19) NSNPS N ZSTAT Pvalue Bonf. corr. Pvalue
PRNP 20 4666882 4682236 27 3773 7.02 1.12 x 10−12 2.03 x 10−8
CECR5 22 17618401 17646177 81 3773 4.28 9.42 x 10−6 0.17
ANP32E 1 150190717 150208504 19 3773 3.86 5.63 x 10−5 1
CA14 1 150229554 150237478 3 3773 3.79 7.60 x 10−5 1
AL356356.1 1 150521897 150524367 1 3773 3.67 1.23 x 10−4 1
AC006946.15 22 17602476 17612994 40 3773 3.51 2.20 x 10−4 1
CCDC174 3 14693271 14714166 66 3773 3.51 2.26 x 10−4 1
KCNJ3 2 155554811 155714863 453 3773 3.45 2.82 x 10−4 1
VRK3 19 50479724 50529203 115 3773 3.38 3.56 x 10−4 1
U2SURP 3 142683339 142779567 154 3773 3.38 3.61 x 10−4 1

(NSNPS = number of SNPs annotated to a gene; N = number of samples; ZSTAT = Z-score for the gene, based on its p-value)

Age-based analysis did not identify any genome-wide significant SNP associations (Fig 9). Two suggestive associations were identified on chromosome 15 near NEDD4 and chromosome 13 near UGGT2 (S8 and S9 Figs). Gene-based analysis for age at onset with MAGMA identified HS6ST3 (pvalue = 1.93 x 10−6), with similarly significant association detected using FUMA (S3 and S4 Tables).

Fig 9. Manhattan plot with age at onset as phenotype.

Fig 9

(red line indicating genome-wide significance of 5x10-8; blue line indicating suggestive genome-wide significance (5x10-8 > pvalue < 1x10-).

Gene-set analysis for clinical duration using FUMA (including PRNP locus) identified binders of type-5 metabotropic glutamate receptors (GO Molecular Function ontology n = 1738, pvalue = 1.85 x 10−5) (Tables 4 and 5). Gene-set analysis for age at onset using MAGMA revealed intracellular oxygen homeostasis as a significant term (pvalue = 1.89 x 10−6) (S5 Table). Genetic correlation between clinical duration GWAS and the previously published case-control GWAS resulted in a non-significant genetic correlation of 0.1467 (pvalue = 0.79, 95% CI 0.92,1.21; S6 Table). Meta-analysis of the two GWAS (case-only and case-control) resulted in the same strong codon 129 effect as described above whilst removing the suggestive locus on chromosome 22 the HDHD5 locus (S10 Fig).

Table 4. Top 10 pathways identified by MAGMA (standalone) gene-set analysis (including genome-wide SNPs) using duration as phenotype.

Category Pathway NGENES BETA Pvalue Bonf. Corr. Pvalue
Gene ontology regulation of calcium ion import across plasma membrane 2 2.86 2.57 x 10−6 0.04
Gene ontology regulation of T-lymphocyte activation via T cell receptor contact with MHC-bound antigen 5 1.58 5.41 x 10−6 0.09
Gene ontology cellular response to copper 11 1.04 2.55 x 10−5 0.43
Gene ontology proteosomal ubiquitin-independent protein catabolic process 4 1.51 6.25 x 10−5 1.00
Gene ontology anchored component of external side of plasma membrane 18 0.77 1.06 x 10−4 1
Gene ontology response to iron ion 30 0.61 1.11 x 10−4 1
Gene ontology obsolete intrinsic component of external side of plasma membrane 23 0.69 1.16 x 10−4 1
Gene ontology T cell activation via T cell receptor contact with antigen bound to MHC molecule on antigen presenting cell 8 1.06 1.27 x 10−4 1
Gene ontology CD4-positive, CD25-positive, alpha-beta regulatory T cell differentiation 4 1.33 3.44 x 10−4 1
Gene ontology positive regulation of T cell activation via T cell receptor contact with antigen bound to MHC molecule on antigen presenting cell 2 1.67 3.52 x 10−4 1

(NGENES = number of genes in the gene-set dataset; BETA = regression coefficient of the gene set)

Table 5. Top 10 pathways identified by FUMA gene-set analysis (including genome-wide SNPs) using duration as phenotype.

Category Pathway NGENES BETA Pvalue Bonf. corr. Pvalue
Gene ontology type_5_metabotropic_glutamate_receptor_binding 5 1.92 1.85 x 10−5 0.29
Gene ontology ureteric_bud_elongation 9 1.00 8.58 x 10−5 1
Gene ontology negative_regulation_of_cell_maturation 8 0.89 1.53 x 10−5 1
Gene ontology mechanosensory_behavior 13 0.85 1.55 x 10−5 1
Gene ontology actin_filament_based_transport 8 0.90 3.84 x 10−5 1
Gene ontology learned_vocalization_behavior_or_vocal_learning 8 0.97 3.99 x 10−5 1
Gene ontology peptidyltransferase_activity 3 1.70 5.78 x 10−5 1
Gene ontology pyrimidine_containing_compound_transmembrane_transport 10 0.79 7.38 x 10−5 1
Curated gene sets smid_breast_cancer_relapse_in_pleura_dn 24 0.49 7.89 x 10−5 1
Gene ontology vitamin_binding 128 0.23 8.75 x 10−4 1

(NGENES = number of genes in the gene-set dataset; BETA = regression coefficient of the gene set)

We also calculated the power of the study based on 3773 samples and a genome-wide significance level of 5x10-8 using the additive model with a range of effect sizes and minor allele frequencies. Plotting the most significant SNP (PRNP; rs1799990) and the lead SNPs of the suggestive association signals (HDHD5, rs4819962; FHIT, rs2366847; EREG, rs11727991) resulted in rs1799990 achieving full power and the three lead SNPs being borderline achieving a power value of ~0.7–0.8 (S11 Fig).

Interestingly, there was no evidence that the sCJD genetic susceptibility genes, STX6 or GAL3ST1, which were identified in the previously published case-control study [19], modify clinical phenotypes. The identification of these genes in the case-control GWAS implicated intracellular trafficking and sphingolipid metabolism respectively as causal disease mechanisms. To further investigate the roles of these pathways in disease phenotypes, we compiled a comprehensive, bespoke gene list including genes related to these pathways, which have been implicated in neurodegenerative diseases, and performed MAGMA analysis (S7 and S8 Tables). This highlighted UGGT2, a sphingolipid metabolism linked gene, to be associated with sCJD age of onset.

Discussion

We describe the first well-powered GWAS for phenotypic traits in sporadic human prion disease. The only clearly identified risk locus was the PRNP gene itself, more specifically the well-known common variant at codon 129, for the clinical duration phenotype. Conditioning for the codon 129 polymorphism at this locus removed all evidence of association at the locus, implicating the coding sequence of PRNP and not PrP expression in controlling this phenotype. We found a number of suggestive risk loci with P<10−5, which should require additional genetic evidence before being considered further. Pathway analysis identified binders of type-5 metabotropic glutamate receptors, which are known to mediate the downstream effects of amyloid beta bound to prion protein, as a top hit for clinical duration [27, 28]. Importantly however, since this small gene set (n = 5) was non-significant after removing PRNP, these data should be interpreted with caution. Overall, this work further establishes the key importance of the PrP coding sequence relative to other potential mechanisms and genetic loci in determination of CJD survival.

For age at onset there were no genome-wide significant SNPs, but we identified the HS6ST3 in a gene-based test and intracellular oxygen homeostasis by pathway analysis (S3S5 Tables). HS6ST3 or Heparan Sulfate 6-O-Sulfotransferase 3 catalyses the transfer of sulfate from 3’-phosphoadenosine 5’-phosphosulfate (PAPS) to position 6 of the N-sulfoglucosamine residue (GlcNS) of heparan sulfate (HS), thus potentially modifying the interactions of this molecule with cell surface proteins. There is a vast literature on a role for polyanionic compounds, including HS in prion disease pathogenesis, as they colocalise with PrPC on the cell surface and with aggregated PrPSc [29], act as potential co-factors in prion replication, and there is potent inhibitory activity of HS and related compounds on prion propagation [30]. A role for intracellular oxygen homeostasis is less clearly linked to prion disease. Both associations were borderline in significance taking into account multiple testing. We found no evidence of genetic correlation between the case-only and published case-control GWAS analyses. We observed only a moderate heritability (h2SNP = 0.18–0·26, using different methods) for the case-control GWAS [19], and low heritability for the duration phenotype (h2SNP = 0.09 using LDSC). Common SNPs measured in these studies therefore explain only a small proportion of disease phenotypes. The only locus common to both GWAS studies is PRNP, with no evidence that SNPs at the STX6 or GAL3ST1 loci have any effect on clinical phenotypes in lead SNP association, gene-based or pathway analyses. It is possible that larger sample sizes, with additional risk factor discovery, will uncover shared determinants, but the current evidence suggests that beyond PRNP, distinct mechanisms and/or stochasticity determines disease risk, age at onset and clinical duration.

Absence of an association between PRNP cis-eQTL SNPs and clinical duration/age of onset should not deter the pursuit of methods to reduce PrP as a therapeutic strategy. There is a wealth of evidence for the safety and potential effectiveness of this approach from animal models [3135]. PRNP cis-eQTL SNPs are predominantly associated with localised tissue expression of PrP, typically in cerebellum or cerebellar hemispheres, and are relatively modest effects. Therapeutic strategies aim for more profound protein knock-down, which will be critical to achieve across a wide range of central nervous system tissues and cell types [36].

Poleggi et al. (2018) [37] aimed to identify additional genetic modifiers in a GWAS study with a small cohort of patients (E200K mutation only). In this study, two SNPs were identified within the CYP4X1 gene locus indicating that this gene modulates onset of disease in sCJD. The top SNP identified in the Poleggi analysis (rs9793471) had a pvalue of 0.08 in our analysis.

A number of GWAS studies reporting genetic modifiers in other neurological diseases of in relation to the age at onset phenotype have been reported. One example is the case-only study of Li et al. [38] where a number of novel genes for age-at onset in Alzheimer’s disease were identified. Blauwendraat et al. [39] described several modifier loci in an age-at-onset GWAS analysis of Parkinson’s disease.

It was imperative to transform the non-normal distribution of the duration phenotype data as the GWAS association model requires Gaussian distributed phenotype data to avoid model misspecification, which could lead to false conclusions. A number of data transformations were tested (log, rank inverse, square root) for transformation of the phenotype data (duration and age) and the Box-Cox transformation was found to be the best option for establishing the optimal correlation coefficient ensuring a normal distribution and reduction of data noise to a minimum.

This study was limited by sample size and was restricted to the examination of age at onset and clinical duration phenotypes that are almost universally collected, whereas the diversity of clinical phenotypes in CJD is well known (including variable involvement of cognitive, ataxic, psychiatric, sleep and motor aspects). In biochemical aspects and biomarkers, we see diversity of PrPSc types, and different imaging, neurophysiological and fluid biomarker associations. These parameters are only collected in smaller subsets of data. Genetic studies in a rare disease like sCJD benefit from national investment and collaboration in prion disease surveillance [40]. Future work of the collaborative group might focus on building larger sample collections for increased power, exome or genome studies to ascertain rare and structural variants and extension of these type of analyses to other phenotypes (e.g., the well-known subtypes of CJD based on major symptom at presentation (ataxia, visual processing disorder etc.)).

Supporting information

S1 Text. Patient recruitment and phenotypes.

(DOCX)

pone.0304528.s001.docx (26.6KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Box-Cox normality plot showing the correlation coefficient (maximum value at -0.14).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s002.tif (215.5KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Principal component analysis with first two axes used for exclusion of case and control samples (1000 Genome data used as European ancestry control).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s003.tif (499.5KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Principal component featuring distribution of samples in terms of country of origin.

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s004.tif (873.4KB, tif)
S4 Fig. Regional association plot at PRNP locus for conditional analysis on SNP rs1799990 with duration as phenotype (heterozygous model).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s005.tif (503.1KB, tif)
S5 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive locus (HDHD5) with duration as phenotype (additive model).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s006.tif (528.4KB, tif)
S6 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive FHIT locus with duration as phenotype (additive model).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s007.tif (464.2KB, tif)
S7 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive EREG locus with duration as phenotype (additive model).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s008.tif (478.8KB, tif)
S8 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive NEDD4 locus with age as phenotype (additive model).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s009.tif (530.2KB, tif)
S9 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive UGGT2 locus with age as phenotype (additive model).

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s010.tif (629.4KB, tif)
S10 Fig. Meta-analysis of case-only and case-control GWAS.

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s011.tif (237.4KB, tif)
S11 Fig. Power analysis indicating the strength of power of PRNP lead SNP (rs1799990) and lead SNPs of suggestive hits as described in the Results section based on a range of effect sizes vs. MAF.

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s012.tif (1,013.3KB, tif)
S12 Fig. Histograms for phenotype age before and after Box-Cox transformation for codon 129 genotypes MM, MV and VV.

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s013.tif (447.1KB, tif)
S13 Fig. Histograms for phenotype duration before and after Box-Cox transformation for codon 129 genotypes MM, MV and VV.

(TIF)

pone.0304528.s014.tif (398.7KB, tif)
S1 Table. List of 53 significantly associated SNPs (Pvalue < 5x10-8).

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s015.xlsx (13KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. List of 51 suggestively associated SNPs (5x10-8 > Pvalue < 1x10-5).

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s016.xlsx (11.7KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Top 10 genes identified by MAGMA (standalone) gene analysis (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with age as phenotype.

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s017.xlsx (11.9KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Top 10 genes identified by FUMA gene analysis (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with age as phenotype.

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s018.xlsx (11.9KB, xlsx)
S5 Table. Top 10 pathways identified by MAGMA (standalone) gene-set analysis (including genome-wide SNPs) using age as phenotype.

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s019.xlsx (11.7KB, xlsx)
S6 Table. Genetic correlation using LDSC with a genetic correlation of 0.1467.

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s020.xlsx (10.9KB, xlsx)
S7 Table. Top 10 genes identified by MAGMA involved in sphingolipid and intracellular trafficking pathways (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with age as phenotype.

Green rectangles indicate genes involved in neurological diseases (PrD = Prion Disease, PD = Parkinson’s Disease, AD = Alzheimer’s Disease, ALS = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; HD = Huntington’s Disease, FTD = Frontotemporal Dementia) (NSNPS = number of SNPs annotated to a gene; N = number of samples; ZSTAT = Z-score for the gene, based on its p-value).

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s021.xlsx (12.3KB, xlsx)
S8 Table. Top 10 genes identified by MAGMA involved in sphingolipid and intracellular trafficking pathways (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with duration as phenotype.

Green rectangles indicate genes involved in neurological diseases (PrD = Prion Disease, PD = Parkinson’s Disease, AD = Alzheimer’s Disease, ALS = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; HD = Huntington’s Disease, FTD = Frontotemporal Dementia). (NSNPS = number of SNPs annotated to a gene; N = number of samples; ZSTAT = Z-score for the gene, based on its p-value).

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s022.xlsx (12.4KB, xlsx)
S9 Table. Top 10 pathways identified by FUMA gene-set analysis (including genome-wide SNPs) using age as phenotype. (NGENES = number of genes in the gene-set dataset; BETA = regression coefficient of the gene set).

(XLSX)

pone.0304528.s023.xlsx (11.7KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Richard Newton for support with images and UCL Genomics who did the array processing. For UK samples we would like to thank patients, their families and carers, UK neurologists and other referring physicians, co-workers at the National Prion Clinic, our colleagues at the National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Research and Surveillance Unit, Edinburgh. We thank Dr. Maria Styczynska from Mossakowski Medical Research Centre; Polish Academy of Sciences; Warsaw, for kindly providing control DNA samples for the Polish cohort. We thank Inés Santiuste and the Valdecilla Biobank (PT17/0015/0019), integrated in the Spanish Biobank Network, for their support and collaboration in sample collection and management. We thank Megan Casey for assistance with sample collection and management. The Australian National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Registry (ANCJDR) would like to thank all patients and their families for supporting surveillance activities that have allowed participation in the study, as well as their managing physicians. The Italian Creutzfeldt-Jakob Registry would like to thank Dr.Clara Salciccia for the collaboration in DNA sample collection and management, Cinzia Gasparrini for administrative assistance and all patients, their families, neurologists, and referring physicians.

Data Availability

The data used in this study have been deposited in the public database GWAS Catalogue (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/; accession number GCP000963).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the MRC (UK) core grant to the MRC Prion Unit at UCL (code MC_UU_00024/1). Several authors at UCL/UCLH receive funding from the Department of Health’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme. Some of this work was supported by the Department of Health funded National Prion Monitoring Cohort study. Funding for the collection of Polish samples for study was partially provided by the EU joint programme JPND and Medical University of Lodz. The Italian national surveillance of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and related disorders is partially supported by the Ministero della Salute, Italy. The German National Reference Centre for TSE is funded by grants from the Robert-Koch-Institute. The Dutch National Prion Disease Registry is funded by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), which is part from the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports, The Netherlands. PS-J was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III [Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, PI16/01652] Accion Estrategica en Salud integrated in the Spanish National I+D+i Plan and financed by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) – Subdireccion General de Evaluacion and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER – “Una Manera de Hacer Europa”). The French National Surveillance Network for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is supported by Santé Publique France. MDG (UCSF) receives research support from the NIH/NIA (grant R01 AG031189, R56AG055619, R01AG062562) and the Michael J. Homer Family Fund. The National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center in the U.S. is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (NU38CK000486). The Austrian Reference Center for Human Prion diseases (ÖRPE) is supported by the Austrian Ministy of Health – Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz. The ANCJDR is supported through funding from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

References

  • 1.Klug GM, Wand H, Simpson M, Boyd A, Law M, Masters CL, et al. Intensity of human prion disease surveillance predicts observed disease incidence. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013; 84(12): 1372–1377. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-304820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pocchiari M, Puopolo M, Croes EA, Budka H, Gelpi E, Collins S, et al. Predictors of survival in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and other human transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Brain. 2004; 127: 2348–2359. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Thompson AG, Lowe J, Fox Z, Lukic A, Porter MC, Ford L, et al. The Medical Research Council prion disease rating scale: a new outcome measure for prion disease therapeutic trials developed and validated using systematic observational studies. Brain. 2013; 136(Pt 4): 1116–1127. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nihat A, Mok TH, Odd H, Thompson AGB, Caine D, McNiven K, et al. Development of novel clinical examination scales for the measurement of disease severity in Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2022; 93(4): 404–412. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2021-327722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tam J, Centola J, Kurudzhu H, Watson N, MacKenzie J, Leitch M, et al. Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in the young (50 and below): 10-year review of United Kingdom surveillance. J Neurol. 2023; 270(2): 1036–1046. doi: 10.1007/s00415-022-11467-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Appleby BS, Maddox R, Schonberger LB, Cali I, Hammett T, Cohen M, et al. Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in a Very Young Person. Neurology. 2021; 97(17): 813–816. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.NCJDRSU (The National CJD Research & Surveillance Unit). Annual Report 2021. [cited 2022. Available from: https://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/report29.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nihat A, Ranson JM, Harris D, Mcniven K, Mok T, Rudge P, et al. Development of Prognostic Models for Survival and Care Status in Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Brain Commun. 2022; 4(4); fcac201. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcac201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Prusiner SB. Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science. 1982; 216: 136–144. doi: 10.1126/science.6801762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kraus A, Hoyt F, Schwartz CL, Hansen B, Artikis E, Hughson AG, et al. High-resolution structure and strain comparison of infectious mammalian prions. Mol Cell. 2021; 81(21): 4540–4551 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2021.08.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Manka SW, Zhang W, Wenborn A, Betts J, Joiner S, Saibil HR, et al. 2.7 A cryo-EM structure of ex vivo RML prion fibrils. Nat Commun. 2022; 13(1): 4004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Riek R, Hornemann S, Wider G, Billeter M, Glockshuber R, Wuthrich K. NMR structure of the mouse prion protein domain PrP(121–231). Nature. 1996; 382(6587): 180–182. doi: 10.1038/382180a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wadsworth JD, Asante EA, Collinge J. Contribution of transgenic models to understanding human prion disease. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2010; 36(7): 576–597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Manka SW, Wenborn A, Betts J, Joiner S, Saibil HR, Collinge J, et al. A structural basis for prion strain diversity. Nat Chem Biol. 2023; 19(5): 607–613. doi: 10.1038/s41589-022-01229-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mercer RCC, Harris DA. Mechanisms of prion-induced toxicity. Cell Tissue Res. 2023; 392(1): 81–96. doi: 10.1007/s00441-022-03683-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lakkaraju AKK, Frontzek K, Lemes E, Herrmann U, Losa M, Marpakwar R, et al. Loss of PIKfyve drives the spongiform degeneration in prion diseases. EMBO Mol Med. 2021; 13(9): e14714. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202114714 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Moreno JA, Radford H, Peretti D, Steinert JR, Verity N, Martin MG, et al. Sustained translational repression by eIF2 alpha-P mediates prion neurodegeneration. Nature. 2012; 485(7399): 507–511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Llorens F, Rubsamen N, Hermann P, Schmitz M, Villar-Pique A, Goebel S, et al. A prognostic model for overall survival in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2020; 16(10): 1438–1447. doi: 10.1002/alz.12133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jones E, Hummerich H, Vire E, Uphill J, Dimitriadis A, Speedy H, et al. Identification of novel risk loci and causal insights for sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: a genome-wide association study. Lancet Neurol. 2020; 19(10): 840–848. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30273-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hermann P, Appleby B, Brandel JP, Caughey B, Collins S, Geschwind MD, et al. Biomarkers and diagnostic guidelines for sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Lancet Neurol. 2021; 20(3): 235–246. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30477-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mastrangelo A, Mammana A, Baiardi S, Tiple D, Colaizzo E, Rossi M, et al. Evaluation of the impact of CSF prion RT-QuIC and amended criteria on the clinical diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: a 10-year study in Italy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2023; 94(2): 121–129. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2022-330153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Das S, Forer L, Schonherr S, Sidore C, Locke AE, Kwong A, et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat Genet. 2016; 48(10): 1284–1287. doi: 10.1038/ng.3656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bulik-Sullivan B, Loh P, Finucane H, Ripke S, Yang J, Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium et al. LD Score Regression Distinguishes Confounding from Polygenicity in Genome-Wide Association Studies. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(3): 291–295. doi: 10.1038/ng.3211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Watanabe K, Taskesen E, van Bochoven A, Posthuma D. Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA. Nat Commun. 2017; 8(1): 1826. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01261-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.de Leeuw CA, Mooij JM, Heskes T, Posthuma D. MAGMA: generalized gene-set analysis of GWAS data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015; 11(4): e1004219. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. Journal of Royal Statistical Society; Series B. 1964; 26: 211–243. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Um JW, Kaufman AC, Kostylev M, Heiss JK, Stagi M, Takahashi H, et al. Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 is a coreceptor for Alzheimer abeta oligomer bound to cellular prion protein. Neuron. 2013; 79(5): 887–902. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Haas LT, Salazar SV, Kostylev MA, Um JW, Kaufman AC, Strittmatter SM. Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 couples cellular prion protein to intracellular signalling in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain. 2015; 139(2): 526–546. doi: 10.1093/brain/awv356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rouvinski A, Karniely S, Kounin M, Moussa S, Goldberg MD, Warburg G, et al. Live imaging of prions reveals nascent PrPSc in cell-surface, raft-associated amyloid strings and webs. J Cell Biol. 2014; 204(3): 423–441. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201308028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Larramendy-Gozalo C, Barret A, Daudigeos E, Mathieu E, Antonangeli L, Riffet C, et al. Comparison of CR36, a new heparan mimetic, and pentosan polysulfate in the treatment of prion diseases. J Gen Virol. 2007; 88(Pt 3): 1062–1067. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.82286-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bueler H, Aguzzi A, Sailer A, Greiner RA, Autenried P, Aguet M, et al. Mice devoid of PrP are resistant to scrapie. Cell. 1993; 73(7): 1339–1347. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90360-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mallucci G, Dickinson A, Linehan J, Klohn PC, Brandner S, Collinge J. Depleting neuronal PrP in prion infection prevents disease and reverses spongiosis. Science. 2003; 302(5646): 871–874. doi: 10.1126/science.1090187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.White MD, Farmer M, Mirabile I, Brandner S, Collinge J, Mallucci GR. Single treatment with RNAi against prion protein rescues early neuronal dysfunction and prolongs survival in mice with prion disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008; 105(29): 10238–10243. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802759105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Raymond GJ, Zhao HT, Race B, Raymond LD, Williams K, Swayze EE, et al. Antisense oligonucleotides extend survival of prion-infected mice. JCI Insight. 2019;5(16): e131175. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.131175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Minikel EV, Zhao HT, Le J, O’Moore J, Pitstick R, Graffam S, et al. Prion protein lowering is a disease-modifying therapy across prion disease stages, strains and endpoints. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48(19): 10615–10631. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mortberg MA, Gentile JE, Nadaf NM, Vanderburg C, Simmons S, Dubinsky D, et al. A single-cell map of antisense oligonucleotide activity in the brain. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023; 51(14): 7109–7124. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Poleggi A, van der Lee S, Capellari S, Puopolo M, Ladogana A, De Pascali E, et al. Age at onset of genetic (E200K) and sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob diseases is modulated by the CYP4X1 gene. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89(12):1243–1249 doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Li Y., Nuytemans K, La J, Jiang R, Slifer SH, Sun S et al. Identification of novel genes for age-at-onset of Alzheimer’s disease by combining quantitative and survival trait analyses. Alzheimers Dement 2023,;19(7): 3148–3157. doi: 10.1002/alz.12927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Blauwendraat C, Heilbron K, Vallerga CL, Bandres-Ciga S, von Coelln R, Pihlstrøm L et al. Parkinson’s disease age at onset genome-wide association study: Defining heritability, genetic loci, and α-synuclein mechanisms. Mov Disord. 2019; 34(6):866–875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Watson N, Brandel JP, Green A, Hermann P, Ladogana A, Lindsay T, et al. The importance of ongoing international surveillance for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Nat Rev Neurol. 2021; 17(6): 362–379. doi: 10.1038/s41582-021-00488-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gianluigi Zanusso

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

12 Mar 2024

PONE-D-24-01351Genome wide association study of clinical duration and age at onset of sporadic CJDPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hummerich,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please, provide changes according to reviewers' criticisms reported below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gianluigi Zanusso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“Dr. Budka reports grants from Federal Office for Health, Swiss Government, during the conduct of the study. Dr. HAIK reports grants from Santé Publique France, during the conduct of the study; grants from LFB Biomedicaments, grants from Institut de Recherche Servier, grants from MedDay Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. HAIK has a patent Method for treating prion diseases (PCT/EP2019/070457) pending. Dr. Appleby reports grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during the conduct of the study. Fronztek reports grants from Ono Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Mead reports grants from Medical Research Council (UK) and grants from National Institute of Health Research’s Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust during the conduct of the study. Dr. Kovacs reports personal fees from Biogen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Collinge reports grants from Medical Research Council, grants from NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre, during the conduct of the study; and is a Director and shareholder of D-Gen Limited, an academic spinout in the field of prion disease diagnostics, decontamination and therapeutics. Dr. Pocchiari reports personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from CNCCS (Collection of National Chemical Compounds and Screening Center), non-financial support from Fondazione Cellule Staminali, outside the submitted work. Dr Geschwind has consulted for3D Communications, Adept Field Consulting, Advanced Medical Inc., Best Doctors Inc., Second Opinion Inc., Gerson Lehrman Group Inc., Guidepoint Global LLC, InThought Consulting Inc., Market Plus, Trinity Partners LLC, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Quest Diagnostics and various medical-legal consulting. He has received speaking honoraria for various medical center lectures and from Oakstone publishing. He has received past research support from Alliance Biosecure, CurePSP, the Tau Consortium, and Quest Diagnostics. Dr. Geschwind serves on the board of directors for San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility and on the editorial board of Dementia & Neuropsychologia.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. We notice that your supplementary figures and tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Previous studies identified various factors influencing survival time in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), including demographics, prion protein genotype, and biomarkers. This study aimed to establish associations between common genetic variations and key clinical features of sCJD to enhance understanding of disease processes and identify potential therapeutic targets. The authors report the analysis of a large cohort of genetic determinants of clinical duration and age at onset in 3999 sCJD cases derived from previous literature or newly genotyped on Illumina’s Global Screening Array. They identified 53 SNPs on chromosome 20 that were significantly associated with clinical duration. The non-synonymous variant at codon 129 in the PRNP gene emerged as a key determinant of clinical duration. No genome-wide significant SNP determinants were found for age at onset, but the HS6ST3 gene showed significance in a gene-based test. The manuscript confirms that the PRNP codon 129 is essentially the primary modifier of CJD survival, suggesting limited effects at other genetic loci.

The manuscript is well written. The data are analysed robustly and discussed appropriately. The conclusions are adherent with the results.

I have no issues with this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The paper illustrates the genetic influence, determined by GWA analysis, on CJD phenotypes, clinical duration and age at onset. Although the number of subjects is important, with the exception of polymorphism PRNP codon 129 no other genetic variance affecting the CJD survival.

The experimentation is well conducted and the negative result convincing .

The discussion should be extended in relation to the previous work published by the same consortium (Jones et al Lancet Neurol, 2020) where variants in two loci (STX6 and Gal3ST1) were identified as risk factors in sporadic CJD, for instance in my opinion it is difficult to consider the possibility that an investigation in a larger sample size (line 317) can give different results. Another paper (Poleggi et al J Neurol Neurosurg Psych., 2018) indicating CYP4X1 gene as modulator of sporadic CJD should be considered in the discussion. Positive examples of the approach described in the paper in other neurodegenerative disorders should be also mentioned in the discussion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Emiliano Biasini

Reviewer #2: Yes: Gianluigi Forloni

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 26;19(7):e0304528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304528.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Apr 2024

Response to reviewers:

We thank Reviewer #1 for his positive comments.

We also thank Reviewer #2 for his helpful and constructive feedback.

In relation to the comment that a larger sample size is unlikely to result in the identification of potential modifiers, we would like to state that we identified SNPs very close to the genome wide significance level of 5*10-8 in gene HDHD5. We have and are currently collecting additional samples and therefore we do not want to rule out the possibility that the addition of these samples might confirm HDHD5 as a risk locus for CJD in the future.

The second comment relates to the publication by Poleggi et al. 2018 identifying CYP4X1 as a candidate disease modifier for sCJD. We have addressed this in the Discussion section of the manuscript

We also added examples of other GWAS studies of other neurological diseases with age-at-onset phenotype to the Discussion section and cited two papers, one relating to Alzheimer's disease and the other to Parkinson's disease.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0304528.s024.docx (13.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Gianluigi Zanusso

14 May 2024

Genome wide association study of clinical duration and age at onset of sporadic CJD

PONE-D-24-01351R1

Dear Dr. Mead,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gianluigi Zanusso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Gianluigi Zanusso

17 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-01351R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hummerich,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gianluigi Zanusso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Text. Patient recruitment and phenotypes.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304528.s001.docx (26.6KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Box-Cox normality plot showing the correlation coefficient (maximum value at -0.14).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s002.tif (215.5KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Principal component analysis with first two axes used for exclusion of case and control samples (1000 Genome data used as European ancestry control).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s003.tif (499.5KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Principal component featuring distribution of samples in terms of country of origin.

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s004.tif (873.4KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Regional association plot at PRNP locus for conditional analysis on SNP rs1799990 with duration as phenotype (heterozygous model).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s005.tif (503.1KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive locus (HDHD5) with duration as phenotype (additive model).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s006.tif (528.4KB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive FHIT locus with duration as phenotype (additive model).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s007.tif (464.2KB, tif)
    S7 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive EREG locus with duration as phenotype (additive model).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s008.tif (478.8KB, tif)
    S8 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive NEDD4 locus with age as phenotype (additive model).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s009.tif (530.2KB, tif)
    S9 Fig. Regional association plot at suggestive UGGT2 locus with age as phenotype (additive model).

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s010.tif (629.4KB, tif)
    S10 Fig. Meta-analysis of case-only and case-control GWAS.

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s011.tif (237.4KB, tif)
    S11 Fig. Power analysis indicating the strength of power of PRNP lead SNP (rs1799990) and lead SNPs of suggestive hits as described in the Results section based on a range of effect sizes vs. MAF.

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s012.tif (1,013.3KB, tif)
    S12 Fig. Histograms for phenotype age before and after Box-Cox transformation for codon 129 genotypes MM, MV and VV.

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s013.tif (447.1KB, tif)
    S13 Fig. Histograms for phenotype duration before and after Box-Cox transformation for codon 129 genotypes MM, MV and VV.

    (TIF)

    pone.0304528.s014.tif (398.7KB, tif)
    S1 Table. List of 53 significantly associated SNPs (Pvalue < 5x10-8).

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s015.xlsx (13KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. List of 51 suggestively associated SNPs (5x10-8 > Pvalue < 1x10-5).

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s016.xlsx (11.7KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Top 10 genes identified by MAGMA (standalone) gene analysis (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with age as phenotype.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s017.xlsx (11.9KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Top 10 genes identified by FUMA gene analysis (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with age as phenotype.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s018.xlsx (11.9KB, xlsx)
    S5 Table. Top 10 pathways identified by MAGMA (standalone) gene-set analysis (including genome-wide SNPs) using age as phenotype.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s019.xlsx (11.7KB, xlsx)
    S6 Table. Genetic correlation using LDSC with a genetic correlation of 0.1467.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s020.xlsx (10.9KB, xlsx)
    S7 Table. Top 10 genes identified by MAGMA involved in sphingolipid and intracellular trafficking pathways (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with age as phenotype.

    Green rectangles indicate genes involved in neurological diseases (PrD = Prion Disease, PD = Parkinson’s Disease, AD = Alzheimer’s Disease, ALS = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; HD = Huntington’s Disease, FTD = Frontotemporal Dementia) (NSNPS = number of SNPs annotated to a gene; N = number of samples; ZSTAT = Z-score for the gene, based on its p-value).

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s021.xlsx (12.3KB, xlsx)
    S8 Table. Top 10 genes identified by MAGMA involved in sphingolipid and intracellular trafficking pathways (including genome-wide significant SNPs) with duration as phenotype.

    Green rectangles indicate genes involved in neurological diseases (PrD = Prion Disease, PD = Parkinson’s Disease, AD = Alzheimer’s Disease, ALS = Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; HD = Huntington’s Disease, FTD = Frontotemporal Dementia). (NSNPS = number of SNPs annotated to a gene; N = number of samples; ZSTAT = Z-score for the gene, based on its p-value).

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s022.xlsx (12.4KB, xlsx)
    S9 Table. Top 10 pathways identified by FUMA gene-set analysis (including genome-wide SNPs) using age as phenotype. (NGENES = number of genes in the gene-set dataset; BETA = regression coefficient of the gene set).

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304528.s023.xlsx (11.7KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0304528.s024.docx (13.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data used in this study have been deposited in the public database GWAS Catalogue (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/; accession number GCP000963).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES