
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124
PONE-D-24-06716
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Neurology
Cognitive Impairment
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Neurology
Cognitive Impairment
Medicine and Health Sciences
Neurology
Cognitive Neurology
Cognitive Impairment
Medicine and Health Sciences
Clinical Medicine
Signs and Symptoms
Sarcopenia
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Assessment
Altmetrics
Article-Level Metrics
Biology and Life Sciences
Biomechanics
Hand Strength
Biology and Life Sciences
Computational Biology
Genome Analysis
Genome-Wide Association Studies
Biology and Life Sciences
Genetics
Genomics
Genome Analysis
Genome-Wide Association Studies
Biology and Life Sciences
Genetics
Human Genetics
Genome-Wide Association Studies
Biology and Life Sciences
Genetics
Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms
Biology and Life Sciences
Genetics
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Metaanalysis
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Metaanalysis
A causal relationship between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment: A Mendelian randomization study
A causal relationship between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment: A Mendelian randomization study
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4407-6504
Liu Hengzhi Data curation Formal analysis Software Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2
Fan Yi Conceptualization Software Visualization Writing – original draft 3 4
Liang Jie Conceptualization Supervision 5 6
Hu Aixin Supervision Writing – original draft 5 6
Chen Wutong Software 7
Wang Hua Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 5 6
Fan Yifeng Data curation 7
Li Mingwu Data curation 1 2
Duan Jun Resources 1 2
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1872-247X
Wang Qinzhi Conceptualization Project administration Resources 1 2 *
1 Department of Orthopaedics, Huangshi Central Hospital, Huangshi, China
2 Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei Polytechnic University, Huangshi, China
3 Department of Infection, Huangshi Central Hospital, Huangshi, China
4 Department of Infection, Affiliated Hospital of Hubei Polytechnic University, Huangshi, China
5 Department of Orthopaedics, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, China
6 Department of Orthopaedics, Yichang Central People’s Hospital, Yichang, China
7 Department of Orthopaedics, China Three Gorges University, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Yichang, China
Curcio Francesco Editor
University of Naples Federico II, ITALY
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: wangqinzhi2024@163.com
6 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03091241 3 2024
5 8 2024
© 2024 Liu et al
2024
Liu et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Objective

Sarcopenia and cognitive impairment often coexist in the elderly. In this study, we investigated the causal relationship between sarcopenia-related muscle characteristics and cognitive performance.

Methods

We used linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSC) and Mendelian Randomization (MR) analyses to estimate genetic correlations and causal relationships between genetically predicted sarcopenia-related muscle traits and cognitive function, as well as cognitive function-based discovery samples and replicated samples. Estimated effect sizes were derived from a fixed-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Our univariate genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis indicated a causal relationship between appendicular lean mass (ALM) (β = 0.049; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.032–0.066, P < 0.001) and walking pace (β = 0.349; 95% CI: 0.210–0.487, P < 0.001) with cognitive function, where a causal relationship existed between ALM in both male and female (βALM-Male(M) = 0.060; 95% CI: 0.031–0.089, PALM-M < 0.001; βALM-Female(F) = 0.045; 95% CI: 0.020–0.069, PALM-F < 0.001) with cognitive function. Low grip strength was not causally associated with cognitive function (β = -0.045; 95% CI: -0.092 - -0.002, P = 0.062). A reverse causality GWAS meta-analysis showed a causal relationship between cognitive function and ALM (β = 0.033; 95% CI: 0.018–0.048, P < 0.001) and walking pace (β = 0.039; 95% CI: 0.033–0.051, P < 0.001), where ALM in both male and female showed a causality (βALM-M = 0.041; 95% CI: 0.019–0.063, PALM-M < 0.001; βALM-F = 0.034; 95% CI: 0.010–0.058, PALM-F = 0.005). Cognitive function was not causally related to low grip strength (β = -0.024; 95% CI: -0.073–0.025, P = 0.344). Multivariable MR1 (MVMR1) analyses showed a significant causal relationship for ALM (β = 0.077; 95% CI: 0.044–0.109, P = 0.000) and walking pace (β = 0.579; 95% CI: 0.383–0.775, P = 0.000) and cognitive function. Multivariable MR2 (MVMR2) multivariate analysis showed that ALM causality remained (β = 0.069; 95% CI: 0.033–0.106, P = 0.000), and walking pace (β = 0.589; 95% CI: 0.372–0.806, P = 0.000).

Conclusions

Bidirectional two-sample MR demonstrated that sarcopenia-related muscle characteristics and cognitive performance were positive causal genetic risk factors for each other, while a multivariable MR study demonstrated that low ALM and a slow walking pace were causally involved in reduced cognitive performance. This study suggests a causal relationship between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment in older adults and provide new ideas for prevention and treatment.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Sarcopenia is a syndrome represented by age-related skeletal muscle mass loss, accompanied by decreased muscle strength and reduced physical performance [1]. Muscle-related decline in strength and function causes many adverse outcomes, such as increased risk of falls, fractures, frailty, disability, and high mortality [2]. Currently, sarcopenia prevalence in individuals over 60 years old is 10%–12% worldwide. Globally, approximately 50 million individuals suffer from sarcopenia, and it is expected to increase to 200 million by 2050, which will generate more global health problems and increase economic burdens [3,4]. Muscle mass is usually assessed by ALM; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning is a low cost, low radiation technology and is used to measure total muscle mass in arms and legs [5,6]. Grip strength and walking pace are simple and effective muscle strength and screening assessments for sarcopenia [7–9].

Cognitive impairment is a chronic disease associated with aging, and is characterized by a decline in memory, thinking, perception, language, decision-making, planning, and reasoning, ultimately leading to dementia [10–12]. At the same time, sarcopenia and cognitive impairment have become important chronic diseases that jeopardize health in elderly individuals, leading to global problems such as reduced quality of life, death, and an increased health care burden; thus, disease prevention and management are global issues that require urgent attention.

Several observational clinical studies have reported that sarcopenia is associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment, regardless of the geographical location of the study population and the sarcopenia definition [13,14].

Patients with sarcopenia in low- and middle-income countries have faster cognitive decline rates and an increased risk of cognitive impairment [15]. sarcopenia-related muscular traits represented by a slow walking pace and low grip strength can be used to predict short- and long-term cognitive decline in older adults [16]. A longitudinal study of 6,435 middle-aged and older Korean adults, followed for 6 years, found that low grip strength increased the risk of developing cognitive impairment by 36% [17]. Another national survey of 2,540 individuals aged 60 years and older reported a significant association between low ALM and cognitive impairment [18]. However, these studies did not fully include sarcopenia-related muscular characteristics, and even one study reported no associations between these characteristics and cognitive impairment [19]. Therefore, due to conflicting evidence and the inherent limitations of observational studies, causal relationships between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment remain unclear.

MR The use of genetic variants that are strongly associated with exposure to determine the causality of exposure and outcome reflects the effective effect of exposure on long-term effective effects on outcome. Genetic variants are randomly assigned at conception; they do not change with disease onset and course, they minimize the influence of external confounders and various biases on outcomes, and they are somewhat immune to small sample limitations [20,21]. Therefore, we investigated genetic correlations and causality between genetically predicted sarcopenia-related muscle traits and cognitive impairment using LDSC and MR. By clarifying the causal relationships between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment, we can guide and develop public health policy to reduce the risk of individuals developing both disorders.

2. Methods

2.1. Data sources

In our analyses, we used pooled data from published and publicly available GWAS. We used muscle characteristics associated with sarcopenia, including ALM, low hand grip strength (measured for individuals aged 60 years or older), and walking pace. Genetic associations for ALM were derived from a GWAS of 450,243 UK Biobank (UKB) participants. Of these, 205,513 and 244,730 were of male and female European ancestry, respectively [22]. Jamar J00105 hydraulic hand dynamometer measured grip strength was assessed according to the EWGSOP definition of low grip strength < 30 kg in men and grip strength < 20 kg in females. Low hand grip strength was extracted from a GWAS meta-analysis that included 256,523 Europeans from 22 independent cohorts [23]. Walking pace was recorded as a category phenotype using the ACE touchscreen: ‘slow’, ‘steady/average’ or ‘brisk’, with slow walking pace defined as < 3 miles/hour, steady/average walking pace as 3–4 miles/hour, and brisk walking as > 4 miles/hour. Genetic associations for walking pace were obtained from a GWAS of 459,915 UKB participants. General cognitive performance scores were used to assess cognitive performance; the higher the score, the greater the cognitive performance, and vice versa. Cognitive performance data were obtained from the SSGAC consortium, which included 257,841 Europeans, and was the largest published public GWAS dataset on cognitive performance [24]. Exposures and outcomes were characterized without sample overlap, and all study participants were of European descent. The cognitive functions used to replicate the cohort came from the ‘within family GWAS consortium’, including 22,593 Europeans (S1 Table in S1 File).

2.2. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in exposure and outcome selection

The genome-wide significance parameter for exposed instrumental variable (IV) SNPs was P < 5e−8. Because too many SNPs were included (526 SNPs), the genome-wide significance parameter for IV SNPs, with ALM as the exposed SNP, was P < 5e−20. Previous MR studies used more stringent thresholds in identifying too many SNPs [25]. For IV-associated SNPs, a linkage disequilibrium test, set at kb > 10 MB (R2 < 0.001), was performed to ensure the mutual independence of selected genetic variants and exclude palindromic SNPs with intermediate allele frequencies. IVs that were significantly correlated with an outcome (P < 5e−5) were excluded. Steiger tests were used to indicate no reverse causality for IVs [26]. F-value = (n-k-1/k) (R2/1-R2) [27], where N = the GWAS sample size and K = the number of variant instruments. In principle, an F-value > 10 was chosen for analysis, indicating a less likelihood of weak IV bias [28]. R2 = 2 × β2 × (1-EAF) × EAF [29], where EAF represented the effect allele frequency and β represented the estimated genetic effect of each SNP. R2 reflected the extent to which IVs explained the exposure.

LDSC was used to estimate genetic correlations between traits based on GWAS summary statistics. Genetic correlations between sarcopenia-related traits and cognitive function were assessed using cross-trait LDSC [30–32].

MVMR was also performed; in MVMR1 we used ALM, low grip strength, and walking pace to build a model to determine if one or more characteristic was responsible for cognitive impairment risk. In MVMR1 models, each with sarcopenia-related traits no interference by any other factors or adjustment. MR before study, smoking is associated with cognitive function and sarcopenia-related muscle characteristics have a causal relationship [33,34]. Therefore, in MVMR2, smoking was considered a confounding factor. We selected a population data source with the largest sample size for smoking (smoking was derived from the GSCAN consortium, and MVMR2 was used to determine whether characteristics associated with sarcopenia remained causally related to cognitive function when smoking effects were adjusted). In reverse MR analysis, cognitive function was treated as exposure and its causal effect on muscle characteristics associated with sarcopenia was assessed.

Bilateral P values < 0.05 were considered significant. We further adjusted the threshold for the number of exposure phenotypes using the Bonferroni correction approach. Thus, the threshold for statistical significance for the three sarcopenia-related muscle characteristic exposures in inverse variance weighting (IVW) was set at P < 0.05/3 = 0.017. A value of 0.017 < P < 0.05 was suggestive of a potential genetic association. MR analyses were performed using MR-PRESSO (v.1.0), two-sample MR packages [35], Radial MR (v.1.0), and R software (v.9.2.19).

2.3. Statistical analysis

IVW was the main univariable analysis method as it provided the most accurate causal estimation [36]. MR-Egger [37], weighted median (WM) [38], and weighted mode methods [39] were used as complementary methods and sensitivity analyses. Although precision and efficiency were relatively low, MR-Egger regression generated estimates by correcting for pleiotropy, and the intercept was used to check for pleiotropy. WM provided robust and consistent effect estimates when 50% of inheritance was for valid IVs [37,40].

Heterogeneity was tested using Cochran Q heterogeneity tests [41,42]. Sensitivity analysis was performed using leave-one-out analysis to explore the effects of individual SNPs on causal associations. Radial IVW was used to remove IVs that contributed significantly to heterogeneity [43]. Scatter plots showed pleiotropy results calculated using MR-Egger intercept tests. Sensitivity analysis was performed using leave-one-out analysis to explore the effect of individual SNPs on causal associations.

3. Ethics approval

Published GWAS studies had passed ethical review at the time of study.

4. Results

For all genetic associations used in bidirectional two-sample MR analyses of sarcopenia and cognitive performance, each SNP is listed (S2 Table in S1 File). IVs with high heterogeneity were removed by Radial MR (Supplementary Figures K1–20 in S1 Data). All F-statistic ranges for IVs exceeded 10, indicating no weak instrumental bias. MR-Steiger tests were used to test each SNP to verify the correctness of the causal direction (S1 Table in S1 File).

4.1. LDSC regression analyses

These analyses were performed to assess genetic associations between sarcopenia-related muscle characteristics and cognitive function. Analyses showed a causal relationship between ALM and walking pace and cognitive function, and a suggestive association between low grip strength and cognitive function (Table 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124.t001 Table 1 Genetic correlations between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment.

trait	cognitive performance	cognitive function	
rg	SE	P-Value	rg	SE	P-Value	
ALM	0.153	0.017	0.000	0.216	0.037	0.000	
ALM-M	0.129	0.019	0.000	0.187	0.040	0.000	
ALM-F	0.168	0.019	0.000	0.239	0.040	0.000	
low hand grip strength	-0.066	0.030	0.030	-0.122	0.061	0.046	
walking pace	0.315	0.023	0.000	0.410	0.047	0.000	
ALM: Appendicular lean mass; ALM-M: Appendicular lean mass-Male; ALM-F: Appendicular lean mass-Female; SE: Standard error.

4.2. The effects of sarcopenia on cognitive performance (forward)

Univariate discovery analyses showed that ALM had a causal relationship (β = 0.046; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.028–0.064, P = 0.000), and walking pace (β = 0.357; 95% CI: 0.210–0.503, P = 0.000) with cognitive function, both male and female of ALM is a causal relationship (β ALM–M = 0.050; 95% CI: 0.018–0.082, PALM-M = 0.002; βALM-F = 0.043; 95% CI: 0.017–0.070, PALM-F = 0.001) and cognitive function. According to Bonferroni correction analyses, no causal relationship was identified between low grip strength and cognitive function (β = -0.061; 95% CI: 0.112–0.010, P = 0.019). Replication cohort results showed that ALM had a causal relationship (β = 0.078; 95% CI: 0.020–0.135, P = 0.008) and cognitive function, low grip strength (β = 0.055; 95% CI: -0.073 to -0.183, P = 0.401), and walking pace (β = 0.278; 95% CI: of -0.147–0.704, P = 0.200) had no causal relationship with cognitive function. Found that the results of analysis and replication queue is not very consistent, thus obtained the final estimate GWAS meta-analysis. A causal connection between ALM (β = 0.049; 95% CI: 0.032–0.066, P <0.001), and walking pace (β = 0.349; 95% CI: 0.210–0.487, P <0.001) with cognitive function. The causal relationship was observed in both male and female ALM (βALM-M = 0.060; 95% CI: 0.031–0.089, PALM-M < 0.001; βALM-F = 0.045; 95% CI: 0.020–0.069, P ALM-F<0.001) and cognitive function. No causal relationship was identified between low grip strength and cognitive function (β = -0.045; 95% CI: -0.092 - -0.002, P = 0.062) (Fig 1). Furthermore, we did not check for heterogeneity and pleiotropy in ALM and walking pace with MR Egger intercept and Cochran’s Q test (S3 Table in S1 File).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124.g001 Fig 1 Sarcopenia causality and cognitive impairment in univariable and meta-analysis models.

4.3. The effects of cognitive performance on sarcopenia (reverse)

Reverse causal discovery analysis showed that cognitive function was associated with ALM (β = 0.054; 95% CI: 0.029–0.079, P = 0.000) and walking pace (β = 0.073; 95% CI: 0.059–0.088, P = 0.000). Among them, cognitive function was causally associated with ALM in both male and female (βALM-M: 0.062; 95% CI of 0.019 to 0.105, PALM-M = 0.005; βALM-F: 0.084; 95% CI of 0.081 to 0.141, P ALM-F = 0.000). No causal relationship was identified between cognitive function and low grip strength (β = -0.073; 95% CI: - 0.145 - -0.001, P = 0.048). In the replication cohort, cognitive function was significantly associated with ALM (β = 0.022; 95% CI: 0.004–0.041, P = 0.018) and low grip strength (β = 0.019; 95% CI: -0.048–0.086, P = 0.585), while walking pace (β = 0.018; 95% CI: 0.010–0.033, P = 0.001). Among them, the causal relationship between male and cognitive function in ALM, female ALM no causal relationship (βALM–M = 0.034; 95% CI: 0.009–0.060, PALM—M = 0.008; βALM-F = 0.011; 95% CI: -0.018–0.039, P ALM-F = 0.468). Discovery analysis and replication cohort results were not quite consistent, which led to a final estimate from GWAS meta-analysis that cognitive function was causal for ALM (β = 0.033; 95% CI: 0.018–0.048, P <0.001), and walking pace (β = 0.039; 95% CI: 0.033–0.051, P < 0.001), among them, both male and female of ALM is a causal relationship (β ALM–M = 0.041; 95% CI: 0.019–0.063, PALM-M < 0.001; βALM-F = 0.034; 95% CI: 0.010–0.058, PALM-F = 0.005). No causal relationship was identified between cognitive function and low grip strength (β = -0.024; 95% CI: 0.073–0.025, P = 0.344) (Fig 1). Meanwhile, we did not detect heterogeneity using the MR Egger intercept and Cochran’s Q test. (S4 Table in S1 File).

Bidirectional two-sample MR visualization results are presented as follows. IVW funnel plots were roughly symmetrical, with no significant outliers identified (Supplementary Figures S1–20 in S1 Data). Forest plots reflected results estimated after association by relevant individual SNPs using the Wald ratio method (Supplementary Figures T1–20 in S1 Data). Scatter plots reflected estimated effect sizes for sarcopenia and cognitive performance phenotypes (Supplementary Figures R1–20 in S1 Data). IVW MR analyses of SNPs were individually eliminated using the leave-one-out method (Supplementary Figures H1–20 in S1 Data).

4.4. The effects of sarcopenia on cognitive performance (multivariable)

As the three muscle traits associated with sarcopenia were interrelated, we performed MVMR1 to determine whether they were causally related to cognitive function, independent of other traits. We observed that IVW ultimately included 524 SNPs, and multivariate analyses showed significant causal associations between ALM (β = 0.077; 95% CI: 0.044–0.109, P = 0.000), walking pace (β = 0.579; 95% CI: 0.383–0.775, P = 0.000), and cognitive function. When smoking was included in MVMR2, IVW ultimately included 480 SNPs, and multivariate analyses showed that ALM causality remained (β = 0.069; 95% CI: 0.033–0.106, P = 0.000) and also walking pace (β = 0.589; 95% CI: 0.372–0.806, P = 0.000) (Fig 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124.g002 Fig 2 Sarcopenia causality and cognitive impairment in multivariable models.

5. Discussion

In this study, we investigated genetically predicted causal relationships between sarcopenia and cognitive performance using large-scale GWAS summary data. In univariable MR, ALM and walking pace GWAS summary data representing sarcopenia were significantly causally related to cognitive performance, with lower ALM and slower walking pace likely associated with lower cognitive performance scores and a higher risk of cognitive impairment. Because Bonferroni correction analyses were used to avoid false positives, no significant causal relationship was identified between low hand grip strength GWAS summary data and cognitive performance, as confirmed by multivariable analyses. In reverse MR analyses, a significant causal relationship was identified between cognitive performance, ALM, and walking pace, with lower cognitive performance scores possibly representing lower ALM and a slower walking pace in sarcopenia. These associations between muscle characteristics and cognitive impairment provide new insights; for the first time, muscle mass and walking pace, rather than strength, are the main factors associated with cognitive performance.

Several observational studies have reported associations between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment. In their prospective study, Salinas-Rodríguez et al. [44] demonstrated that annual mild cognitive impairment rates in older non-sarcopenia adults was 0.8%, whereas in older adults with sarcopenia it was 1.5%. In a follow-up study of 2,982 elderly individuals, Hu et al. showed that mild cognitive impairment incidences in a non-sarcopenia group, a possible sarcopenia group, and a sarcopenia group were 10.1%, 16.5%, and 24.2%, respectively [45].

The specific mechanisms underlying associations between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment have not been elucidated; however, some common pathways exist between the two. Firstly, elevated inflammatory levels such as interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and C-reactive protein affect protein homeostasis, thereby inducing a catabolic state and muscle atrophy [46,47]. Secondly, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, and hormones such as glucocorticoids, sex steroids, thyroid hormones, growth hormones, and insulin-like growth factor-1, are involved in protein anabolism and apoptotic molecular damage. These molecules diminish as an individual ages and may eventually lead to cognitive impairment and sarcopenia [48,49]. Both conditions also share multiple risk factors, e.g., age, obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and decreased activity [50].

Sarcopenia is an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment [51,52]. Reduced muscle mass in sarcopenia may inhibit myocytokine production, which mediates the muscle–brain axis and helps improve cognitive performance in the brain; therefore, myocytokine deficiency may trigger cognitive impairment [53]. Also, skeletal muscle tissue contraction releases brain-derived neurotrophic factor which regulates synapses in the brain, and its deficiency during sarcopenia is associated with neurodegenerative processes [54].

Cognitive impairment is an independent risk factor for sarcopenia [55,56]. Firstly, behavioral changes, reduced activity, and dysphagia secondary to cognitive impairment accelerate muscle loss and decrease muscle strength, which may lead to sarcopenia [57,58]. Secondly, oxidative stress associated with cognitive impairment disrupts protein synthesis and catabolism, leading to mitochondrial dysfunction and apoptosis, which in turn predispose individuals to developing sarcopenia [59]. Additionally, abnormal neurotransmitter levels and activity in the central nervous system, and also insufficient oxygen supply to the brain in patients with cognitive impairment, can reduce muscle activity and lead to sarcopenia [60].

Our study had several limitations. Firstly, results from other MR methods (MR- Egger, WM, and weighted mode) were not fully consistent with the IVW method. However, since MR analysis is primarily an IVW method, IVW results were preferred in the absence of pleiotropy. Secondly, SNP selection in GWAS data may have increased sample overlap rates between exposure and outcome, thus biasing outcomes; however, selecting GWAS data from as many different samples as possible, as well as F-values much larger than 10, can minimize sample overlap [61]. Thirdly, due to GWAS database limitations, gender, height, weight, ethnicity, and underlying disease data can be restricted, and also, as our main study was conducted in a European population, the data may not be generalizable to other populations.

Supporting information

S1 File (XLSX)

S1 Data (ZIP)

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124.r001
Decision Letter 0
Das Sayani Academic Editor
© 2024 Sayani Das
2024
Sayani Das
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
29 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-06716The causal relationship between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment: a Mendelian randomization studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liang,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Jun 13 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,

Sayani Das, PhD

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. 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.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. I am very interested in this topic and have read it carefully. I have some questions for the author to answer.

First, the authors mention that they used multivariate Mendelian randomization, but I don't seem to find a specific description of what potential confounders were controlled for by MVMR in the paper.

Second, I recommend that the authors use linkage disequilibrium score regression to explore genetic correlations between phenotypes. This is the theoretical basis of the study.

Furthermore, there are significant sex differences in sarcopenia related phenotypes, which may also be associated with cognitive function. Therefore, gender stratification analysis is necessary. As far as I know, gender-stratified GWAS full summary data is currently available.

Can the authors validate their results with data from other sources?

Finally, I suggest that the author revise the article through a native speaker and correct any errors. I also suggested that the author rewrite the introduction, which I felt was lacking in the context. Among them, the introduction of why this study was conducted was not convincing.

As a reminder, it appears that the submitter of the manuscript mistakenly entered the corresponding author's affiliate in plos one's system.

**********

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: No

**********

[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.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
14 Jun 2024

Reviewer 1#

First, the authors mention that they used multivariate Mendelian randomization, but I don't seem to find a specific description of what potential confounders were controlled for by MVMR in the paper.

The author’s answer:

As the three muscle traits associated with sarcopenia were interrelated, we performed MVMR1 to determine whether they were causally related to cognitive function, independent of other traits. We observed that IVW ultimately included 524 SNPs, and multivariate analyses showed significant causal associations between ALM (β = 0.077; 95% CI: 0.044–0.109, P = 0.000), walking pace (β = 0.579; 95% CI: 0.383–0.775, P = 0.000), and cognitive function. When smoking was included in MVMR2, IVW ultimately included 480 SNPs, and multivariate analyses showed that ALM causality remained (β = 0.069; 95% CI: 0.033–0.106, P = 0.000) and also walking pace (β = 0.589; 95% CI: 0.372–0.806, P = 0.000) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Sarcopenia causality and cognitive impairment in multivariable models

Reviewer 2#

Second, I recommend that the authors use linkage disequilibrium score regression to explore genetic correlations between phenotypes. This is the theoretical basis of the study.

The author’s answer:

LDSC was used to estimate genetic correlations between traits based on GWAS summary statistics. Genetic correlations between sarcopenia-related traits and cognitive function were assessed using cross-trait LDSC (1-3)

These analyses were performed to assess genetic associations between sarcopenia-related muscle characteristics and cognitive function. Analyses showed a causal relationship between ALM and walking pace and cognitive function, and a suggestive association between low grip strength and cognitive function (Table 1).

Table 1.The genetic correlations between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment

Reference: 1. Bulik-Sullivan BK, Loh P-R, Finucane HK, Ripke S, Yang J, Patterson N, et al. LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 2015;47(3):291-5.

2. Bulik-Sullivan B, Finucane HK, Anttila V, Gusev A, Day FR, Loh P-R, et al. An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nat Genet. 2015;47(11):1236-41.

3. Gazal S, Finucane HK, Furlotte NA, Loh P-R, Palamara PF, Liu X, et al. Linkage disequilibrium-dependent architecture of human complex traits shows action of negative selection. Nat Genet. 2017;49(10):1421-7.

Reviewer 3#

Furthermore, there are significant sex differences in sarcopenia related phenotypes, which may also be associated with cognitive function. Therefore, gender stratification analysis is necessary. As far as I know, gender-stratified GWAS full summary data is currently available.

The author’s answer:

Genetic associations for ALM were derived from a GWAS of 450,243 UK Biobank (UKB) participants. Of these, 205,513 and 244,730 were of male and female European ancestry, respectively (4).This analysis has been supplemented here. No gender-stratified GWAS data were found for the remaining low grip strength and walking pace.

Reference:4. Pei Y-F, Liu Y-Z, Yang X-L, Zhang H, Feng G-J, Wei X-T, et al. The genetic architecture of appendicular lean mass characterized by association analysis in the UK Biobank study. Commun Biol. 2020;3(1):608.

Reviewer 4#

Can the authors validate their results with data from other sources?

The author’s answer:

Cognitive functions used for the replication cohort were obtained from the Within family GWAS consortium and included 22,593 Europeans. Furthermore, GWAS meta analyses, thus obtained the final estimate of GWAS meta analysis. Bidirectional two-sample MR demonstrated that sarcopenia-related muscle characteristics and cognitive performance were positive causal genetic risk factors for each other, while a multivariable MR study demonstrated that low ALM and a slow walking pace were causally involved in reduced cognitive performance.

Figure 1. Sarcopenia causality and cognitive impairment in univariable and meta-analysis models

Reviewer 5#

Finally, I suggest that the author revise the article through a native speaker and correct any errors. I also suggested that the author rewrite the introduction, which I felt was lacking in the context. Among them, the introduction of why this study was conducted was not convincing.

The author’s answer:

Below are credentials for revising the article and correcting any errors by native speakers.Founded in 2003 in the USA, BioMed Proofreading® is a leading English language copyediting company that focuses on copyediting, paraphrasing/rephrasing and translation of academic manuscripts in life sciences.

MR The use of genetic variants that are strongly associated with exposure to determine the causality of exposure and outcome reflects the effective effect of exposure on long-term effective effects on outcome. Genetic variants are randomly assigned at conception; they do not change with disease onset and course, they minimize the influence of external confounders and various biases on outcomes, and they are somewhat immune to small sample limitations (5, 6). Therefore, we investigated genetic correlations and causality between genetically predicted sarcopenia-related muscle traits and cognitive impairment using LDSC and MR. By clarifying the causal relationships between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment, we can guide and develop public health policy to reduce the risk of individuals developing both disorders.

Reference:5. Carter AR, Sanderson E, Hammerton G, Richmond RC, Davey Smith G, Heron J, et al. Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(5):465-78.

6. Gao Q, Hu K, Yan C, Zhao B, Mei F, Chen F, et al. Associated Factors of Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13(12).

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124.r003
Decision Letter 1
Curcio Francesco Academic Editor
© 2024 Francesco Curcio
2024
Francesco Curcio
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
7 Aug 2024

A causal relationship between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment: a Mendelian Randomization study

PONE-D-24-06716R1

Dear Dr. WANG,

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,

Francesco Curcio, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

No further comments

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: The authors have made a detailed revision in response to my comments, and I believe that the revised version is acceptable for publication in plos one. And I don't have any more questions.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is improved. All questions are answered. No further comments are nedeed. The manuscript merits to be published in PONE.

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0309124.r004
Acceptance letter
Curcio Francesco Academic Editor
© 2024 Francesco Curcio
2024
Francesco Curcio
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
28 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-06716R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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. Francesco Curcio

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Cruz-Jentoft AJ , Bahat G , Bauer J , Boirie Y , Bruyère O , Cederholm T , et al . Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48 (4 ):601.
2 Yuan S , Larsson SC . Epidemiology of sarcopenia: Prevalence, risk factors, and consequences. Metabolism. 2023; 144 :155533. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2023.155533 36907247
3 Cruz-Jentoft AJ , Baeyens JP , Bauer JM , Boirie Y , Cederholm T , Landi F , et al . Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39 (4 ):412–23. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq034 20392703
4 Bruyère O , Beaudart C , Ethgen O , Reginster J-Y , Locquet M . The health economics burden of sarcopenia: a systematic review. Maturitas. 2019; 119 :61–9. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.11.003 30502752
5 Andrews JS , Gold LS , Reed MJ , Hough CL , Garcia JM , McClelland RL , et al . Appendicular Lean Mass, Grip Strength, and the Incidence of Dementia Among Older Adults in the Health ABC Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2023;78 (11 ):2070–6. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glac254 36548124
6 Guerri S , Mercatelli D , Aparisi Gómez MP , Napoli A , Battista G , Guglielmi G , et al . Quantitative imaging techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis and sarcopenia. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018;8 (1 ):60–85. doi: 10.21037/qims.2018.01.05 29541624
7 Coletta G , Phillips SM . An elusive consensus definition of sarcopenia impedes research and clinical treatment: A narrative review. Ageing Res Rev. 2023; 86 :101883. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2023.101883 36792012
8 Cruz-Jentoft AJ , Sayer AA . Sarcopenia. Lancet. 2019;393 (10191 ):2636–46.31171417
9 Bohannon RW . Muscle strength: clinical and prognostic value of hand-grip dynamometry. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2015;18 (5 ):465–70. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000202 26147527
10 Arvanitakis Z , Shah RC , Bennett DA . Diagnosis and Management of Dementia: Review. JAMA. 2019;322 (16 ):1589–99. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4782 31638686
11 Power R , Prado-Cabrero A , Mulcahy R , Howard A , Nolan JM . The Role of Nutrition for the Aging Population: Implications for Cognition and Alzheimer’s Disease. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2019; 10 :619–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-030216-030125 30908950
12 Petersen RC , Lopez O , Armstrong MJ , Getchius TSD , Ganguli M , Gloss D , et al . Practice guideline update summary: Mild cognitive impairment: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2018;90 (3 ):126–35. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004826 29282327
13 Peng T-C , Chen W-L , Wu L-W , Chang Y-W , Kao T-W . Sarcopenia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2020;39 (9 ):2695–701. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.12.014 31917049
14 Chen X , Cao M , Liu M , Liu S , Zhao Z , Chen H . Association between sarcopenia and cognitive impairment in the older people: a meta-analysis. Eur Geriatr Med. 2022;13 (4 ):771–87. doi: 10.1007/s41999-022-00661-1 35670963
15 Jacob L , Kostev K , Smith L , Oh H , López-Sánchez GF , Shin JI , et al . Sarcopenia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults from Six Low- and Middle-Income Countries. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;82 (4 ):1745–54. doi: 10.3233/JAD-210321 34219725
16 Chou M-Y , Nishita Y , Nakagawa T , Tange C , Tomida M , Shimokata H , et al . Role of gait speed and grip strength in predicting 10-year cognitive decline among community-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19 (1 ):186. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1199-7 31277579
17 Jeong S , Kim J . Prospective Association of Handgrip Strength with Risk of New-Onset Cognitive Dysfunction in Korean Adults: A 6-Year National Cohort Study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2018;244 (2 ):83–91. doi: 10.1620/tjem.244.83 29398690
18 Wang Y , Mu D , Wang Y . Association of low muscle mass with cognitive function and mortality in USA seniors: results from NHANES 1999–2002. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24 (1 ):420. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05035-9 38734596
19 Moon JH , Moon JH , Kim KM , Choi SH , Lim S , Park KS , et al . Sarcopenia as a Predictor of Future Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20 (5 ):496–502. doi: 10.1007/s12603-015-0613-x 27102786
20 Carter AR , Sanderson E , Hammerton G , Richmond RC , Davey Smith G , Heron J , et al . Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36 (5 ):465–78. doi: 10.1007/s10654-021-00757-1 33961203
21 Gao Q , Hu K , Yan C , Zhao B , Mei F , Chen F , et al . Associated Factors of Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13 (12 ). doi: 10.3390/nu13124291 34959843
22 Pei Y-F , Liu Y-Z , Yang X-L , Zhang H , Feng G-J , Wei X-T , et al . The genetic architecture of appendicular lean mass characterized by association analysis in the UK Biobank study. Commun Biol. 2020;3 (1 ):608. doi: 10.1038/s42003-020-01334-0 33097823
23 Jones G , Trajanoska K , Santanasto AJ , Stringa N , Kuo C-L , Atkins JL , et al . Genome-wide meta-analysis of muscle weakness identifies 15 susceptibility loci in older men and women. Nat Commun. 2021;12 (1 ):654. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-20918-w 33510174
24 Lee JJ , Wedow R , Okbay A , Kong E , Maghzian O , Zacher M , et al . Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nat Genet. 2018;50 (8 ):1112–21. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 30038396
25 Zhou Q , Jin X , Li H , Wang Q , Tao M , Wang J , et al . Cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein as a cause of psoriasis: Results from bidirectional Mendelian randomization. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023. doi: 10.1111/jdv.19670 38031463
26 Hemani G , Tilling K , Davey Smith G . Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data. PLoS Genet. 2017;13 (11 ): e1007081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007081 29149188
27 Burgess S , Thompson SG . Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40 (3 ):755–64. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr036 21414999
28 Davies NM , Holmes MV , Davey Smith G . Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ. 2018; 362 : k601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k601 30002074
29 Codd V , Nelson CP , Albrecht E , Mangino M , Deelen J , Buxton JL , et al . Identification of seven loci affecting mean telomere length and their association with disease. Nat Genet. 2013;45 (4 ). doi: 10.1038/ng.2528 23535734
30 Bulik-Sullivan BK , Loh P-R , Finucane HK , Ripke S , Yang J , Patterson N , et al . LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 2015;47 (3 ):291–5. doi: 10.1038/ng.3211 25642630
31 Bulik-Sullivan B , Finucane HK , Anttila V , Gusev A , Day FR , Loh P-R , et al . An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nat Genet. 2015;47 (11 ):1236–41. doi: 10.1038/ng.3406 26414676
32 Gazal S , Finucane HK , Furlotte NA , Loh P-R , Palamara PF , Liu X , et al . Linkage disequilibrium-dependent architecture of human complex traits shows action of negative selection. Nat Genet. 2017;49 (10 ):1421–7. doi: 10.1038/ng.3954 28892061
33 Park S , Kim SG , Lee S , Kim Y , Cho S , Kim K , et al . Causal linkage of tobacco smoking with ageing: Mendelian randomization analysis towards telomere attrition and sarcopenia. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023;14 (2 ):955–63. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13174 36696951
34 Mahedy L , Wootton R , Suddell S , Skirrow C , Field M , Heron J , et al . Testing the association between tobacco and cannabis use and cognitive functioning: Findings from an observational and Mendelian randomization study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021; 221 :108591. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108591 33618197
35 Hemani G , Zheng J , Elsworth B , Wade KH , Haberland V , Baird D , et al . The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. Elife. 2018;7 . doi: 10.7554/eLife.34408 29846171
36 Burgess S , Davey Smith G , Davies NM , Dudbridge F , Gill D , Glymour MM , et al . Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations. Wellcome Open Res. 2019; 4 :186.32760811
37 Bowden J , Davey Smith G , Burgess S . Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44 (2 ):512–25. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080 26050253
38 Burgess S , Bowden J , Fall T , Ingelsson E , Thompson SG . Sensitivity Analyses for Robust Causal Inference from Mendelian Randomization Analyses with Multiple Genetic Variants. Epidemiology. 2017;28 (1 ):30–42. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000559 27749700
39 Hartwig FP , Davey Smith G , Bowden J . Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46 (6 ):1985–98. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx102 29040600
40 Bowden J , Davey Smith G , Haycock PC , Burgess S . Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40 (4 ):304–14. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21965 27061298
41 Bowden J , Del Greco M F , Minelli C , Zhao Q , Lawlor DA , Sheehan NA , et al . Improving the accuracy of two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization: moving beyond the NOME assumption. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48 (3 ):728–42. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy258 30561657
42 Greco M FD , Minelli C , Sheehan NA , Thompson JR . Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome. Stat Med. 2015;34 (21 ):2926–40. doi: 10.1002/sim.6522 25950993
43 Bowden J , Spiller W , Del Greco M F , Sheehan N , Thompson J , Minelli C , et al . Improving the visualization, interpretation and analysis of two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization via the Radial plot and Radial regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47 (4 ):1264–78. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy101 29961852
44 Salinas-Rodríguez A , Palazuelos-González R , Rivera-Almaraz A , Manrique-Espinoza B . Longitudinal association of sarcopenia and mild cognitive impairment among older Mexican adults. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12 (6 ):1848–59. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12787 34535964
45 Hu Y , Peng W , Ren R , Wang Y , Wang G . Sarcopenia and mild cognitive impairment among elderly adults: The first longitudinal evidence from CHARLS. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13 (6 ):2944–52. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13081 36058563
46 Cannataro R , Carbone L , Petro JL , Cione E , Vargas S , Angulo H , et al . Sarcopenia: Etiology, Nutritional Approaches, and miRNAs. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22 (18 ). doi: 10.3390/ijms22189724 34575884
47 Dalle S , Rossmeislova L , Koppo K . The Role of Inflammation in Age-Related Sarcopenia. Front Physiol. 2017; 8 :1045. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.01045 29311975
48 Marzetti E , Calvani R , Cesari M , Buford TW , Lorenzi M , Behnke BJ , et al . Mitochondrial dysfunction and sarcopenia of aging: from signaling pathways to clinical trials. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2013;45 (10 ):2288–301. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2013.06.024 23845738
49 Biesemann N , Ried JS , Ding-Pfennigdorff D , Dietrich A , Rudolph C , Hahn S , et al . High throughput screening of mitochondrial bioenergetics in human differentiated myotubes identifies novel enhancers of muscle performance in aged mice. Sci Rep. 2018;8 (1 ):9408. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27614-8 29925868
50 Jung C-H , Mok J-O . Recent Updates on Associations among Various Obesity Metrics and Cognitive Impairment: from Body Mass Index to Sarcopenic Obesity. J Obes Metab Syndr. 2022;31 (4 ):287–95. doi: 10.7570/jomes22058 36530066
51 Fhon JRS , Silva ARF , Lima EFC , Santos Neto APD , Henao-Castaño ÁM , Fajardo-Ramos E , et al . Association between Sarcopenia, Falls, and Cognitive Impairment in Older People: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20 (5 ).
52 Peng T-C , Chiou J-M , Chen T-F , Chen Y-C , Chen J-H . Grip Strength and Sarcopenia Predict 2-Year Cognitive Impairment in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2023;24 (3 ). doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.10.015 36435272
53 Severinsen MCK , Pedersen BK . Muscle-Organ Crosstalk: The Emerging Roles of Myokines. Endocr Rev. 2020;41 (4 ):594–609. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnaa016 32393961
54 Lima Giacobbo B , Doorduin J , Klein HC , Dierckx RAJO , Bromberg E , de Vries EFJ . Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor in Brain Disorders: Focus on Neuroinflammation. Mol Neurobiol. 2019;56 (5 ):3295–312. doi: 10.1007/s12035-018-1283-6 30117106
55 Cipolli GC , de Assumpção D , Borim FSA , Aprahamian I , da Silva Falcão DV , Cachioni M , et al . Cognitive Impairment Predicts Sarcopenia 9 Years Later among Older Adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2023;24 (8 ):1207–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.05.008 37311558
56 Xing Y , Li X , Ma L . Exploring the Intricate Nexus of Sarcopenia and Cognitive Impairment. Aging Dis. 2023. doi: 10.14336/AD.2023.1013 37962457
57 Liu X , Xia X , Hu F , Hou L , Jia S , Liu Y , et al . Nutrition status mediates the association between cognitive decline and sarcopenia. Aging (Albany NY). 2021;13 (6 ):8599–610. doi: 10.18632/aging.202672 33714959
58 Sabia S , Dugravot A , Dartigues J-F , Abell J , Elbaz A , Kivimäki M , et al . Physical activity, cognitive decline, and risk of dementia: 28-year follow-up of Whitehall II cohort study. BMJ. 2017; 357 : j2709. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2709 28642251
59 Ferri E , Marzetti E , Calvani R , Picca A , Cesari M , Arosio B . Role of Age-Related Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Sarcopenia. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21 (15 ). doi: 10.3390/ijms21155236 32718064
60 Sorond FA , Cruz-Almeida Y , Clark DJ , Viswanathan A , Scherzer CR , De Jager P , et al . Aging, the Central Nervous System, and Mobility in Older Adults: Neural Mechanisms of Mobility Impairment. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015;70 (12 ):1526–32. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv130 26386013
61 Pierce BL , Burgess S . Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and 2-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178 (7 ):1177–84. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt084 23863760
