Limited evidence of a shared genetic relationship between C-reactive protein levels and cognitive function in older UK adults of European ancestry.

Previous studies have shown associations between cognitive function and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in older adults. Few studies have considered the extent to which a genetic predisposition for higher CRP levels contributes to this association. Data was analyzed from 7,817 UK participants aged >50 years as part of the PROTECT study, within which adults without dementia completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. We constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS-CRP) that explained 9.61% of the variance in serum CRP levels ( We found no significant associations between PRS-CRP and any cognitive measures in the sample overall. In older participants (>62 years), we observed a significant positive association between PRS-CRP and self-ordered search score (i.e., spatial working memory). Whilst our results indicate a weak positive relationship between PRS-CRP and spatial working memory that is specific to older adults, overall, there appears to be no strong effects of PRS-CRP on cognitive function.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Packer, Corbett, Arathimos, Ballard, Aarsland, Hampshire, Dima, Creese, Malanchini and Powell.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

CB has received contract grant funding from ACADIA, Lundbeck, Takeda, and Axovant pharmaceutical companies, as well as honoraria from Lundbeck, Lilly, Otsuka, and Orion pharmaceutical companies. DA has received research support and/or honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, H. Lundbeck, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and GE Health and serves as a paid consultant for H. Lundbeck and Axovant. AH is owner and director of Future Cognition Ltd., a software company that produces bespoke cognitive assessment technology and was paid to produce cognitive tasks for PROTECT. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. AH, DD, and TP declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.