Panel A depicts the comparison between ADNP and ADNP2 mRNA expression in lymphocytes of CN elderly, MCI, and AD dementia participants in the Israeli cohort. A two-way ANOVA was significant (p<0.001, F (2,77) = 16.176). All pairwise multiple comparison procedures (Fisher LSD Method) indicated a significant difference between ADNP and ADNP2 mRNA values in the AD dementia group, a significant difference for ADNP mRNA between CN and MCI and between MCI and AD dementia (***p<0.001 for all of the above, including also the differences between CN and AD dementia for both ADNP and ADNP2), and a significant difference for ADNP2 mRNA between MCI and AD dementia (#p<0.05). The obvious differences between CN and AD dementia for both ADNP and ADNP2 are not depicted on the graph. Panel B depicts the correlation of ADNP and ADNP2 mRNA expression in lymphocytes across CN, MCI, and AD dementia participants in the Israeli cohort. A highly significant correlation was found in the AD dementia patients (r=0.93).
Panel C compares ADNP plasma protein levels in CN, MCI, and AD dementia Israeli participants.
As we did not find any difference between the serum and the plasma ADNP levels in the HABS vs. Israeli CN cohorts (see Panel D), we grouped the two samples together, increasing the number of tested samples from 7 plasma samples with 35 serum samples (excluding outliers that have shown inconsistency in the duplicate ELISA assay). A one-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference (p<0.001). All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Dunn’s Method) Comparison Diff of Ranks indicated a significant difference between CN and MCI and between CN and AD dementia (*p<0.05, in both cases).
All results are depicted with standard error of the mean (SEM).
AD (Alzheimer’s disease), ADNP (activity-dependent neuroprotective protein), ANOVA (analysis of variance), CN (cognitively normal), HABS (Harvard Aging Brain Study), MCI (mild cognitive impairment), mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid).