Skip to main content
Download PDF

Association between genetic variants of the cholinergic system and postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients

BMC Medical Genomics volume 14, Article number: 248 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) are frequent and serious complications after surgery. We aim to investigate the association between genetic variants in cholinergic candidate genes according to the Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes - pathway: cholinergic neurotransmission with the development of POD or POCD in elderly patients.

Methods

This analysis is part of the European BioCog project (www.biocog.eu), a prospective multicenter observational study with elderly surgical patients. Patients with a Mini-Mental-State-Examination score ≤ 23 points were excluded. POD was assessed up to seven days after surgery using the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale, Confusion Assessment Method and a patient chart review. POCD was assessed three months after surgery with a neuropsychological test battery. Genotyping was performed on the Illumina Infinium Global Screening Array. Associations with POD and POCD were analyzed using logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, comorbidities and duration of anesthesia (for POCD analysis additionally for education). Odds ratios (OR) refer to minor allele counts (0, 1, 2).

Results

745 patients could be included in the POD analysis, and 452 in the POCD analysis. The rate of POD within this group was 20.8% (155 patients), and the rate of POCD was 10.2% (46 patients). In a candidate gene approach three genetic variants of the cholinergic genes CHRM2 and CHRM4 were associated with POD (OR [95% confidence interval], rs8191992: 0.61[0.46; 0.80]; rs8191992: 1.60[1.22; 2.09]; rs2067482: 1.64[1.10; 2.44]). No associations were found for POCD.

Conclusions

We found an association between genetic variants of CHRM2 and CHRM4 and POD. Further studies are needed to investigate whether disturbances in acetylcholine release and synaptic plasticity are involved in the development of POD.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02265263.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious complication, presenting as an acute change in the mental state in terms of attention and other cognitive functions [1]. The condition has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates [2, 3], as well as with a chronic deterioration of cognitive capacity, termed postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), which can lead to dementia [4, 5].

The incidence of POD and POCD is related to a number of predisposing and precipitating risk factors [6, 7], and although the condition can develop at any age, older patients are particularly susceptible. It is unknown to what extent POD and POCD are subject to genetic factors [8]. However, results of a systematic review suggest that genetic factors are likely to influence the development of POD and POCD [9, 10]. Neurotransmitter imbalance, in addition to neuroinflammation is one of the leading hypotheses for the development of delirium [11]. It was hypothesized that neuroinflammation is driven by a disrupted cholinergic neurotransmission [12]. However, the factors responsible for the disturbance of cholinergic neurotransmission are not sufficiently understood. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have so far been unable to identify a link between the cholinergic system and the development of POD and POCD [13, 14], although numerous polymorphisms are located in the cholinergic system [15] and a connection to inflammation has already been established [16]. To confirm the evidence so far of the two previous GWAS, we first performed a GWAS.

Futhermore, the objective of this study was to investigate whether genetic variants in the cholinergic candidate genes were associated with the development of POD or POCD in elderly patients. For that reason we additionally conducted a candidate gene association study (CGAS). Since there is no evidence in the literature indicating which cholinergic genes or variants could be responsible for the disturbance of cholinergic neurotransmission, we decided to investigate all cholinergic genes involved in cholinergic neurotransmission according to the Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway [17,18,19].

Methods

Study design and population

This analysis was conducted as part of the BioCog project (www.biocog.eu), which is an international, prospective, multicenter observational study that recruited patients at the anesthesiology departments of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, in Germany, and the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands. The project was designed to identify biomarker panels associated with an increased risk of POD and POCD, as well as possible clinical outcome predictors [20]. The project was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02265263), approved by Ethics Committees in both countries (ref.: EA2/092/14 and 14-469), and was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki Written. All relevant data protection regulations were followed, and informed consent was obtained from all patients.

The study included patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing elective surgery with an expected surgical duration of at least 60 min, and a Mini-Mental-State-Examination (MMSE) score > 24 points. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in a previous publication [20, 21]. Within the study, further publications with other questions have been published. Worth mentioning here seem the manuscripts, which investigate the association between preoperative medication use and development of POD and POCD [22] or between three Anticholinergic Drug Scales and development of POD [23] and between radiological, chemical and pharmacological cholinergic system parameters and preoperative neurocognitive disorder [21].

Baseline measurements

Baseline measurements included: age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) [24], duration of anesthesia and education according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED).

Postoperative delirium

POD was assessed daily through a validated delirium screening (using the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale, Confusion Assessment Method and a patient chart review) until the 7th postoperative day. For a detailed description of the assessment, please refer to previous publications [22, 23].

Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD)

A neuropsychological test battery was used to identify POCD, consisting of paper-based and computerized assessments performed prior to surgery and at a three-month follow-up. For a detailed description of the assessment, please refer to a previous publication [22].

Genotyping

Blood samples were obtained from patients preoperatively. The DNA was extracted from whole blood or buffy coat with the ReliaPrep™ Blood gDNA Miniprep System (Promega GmbH, Walldorf, Germany) and with the Maxwell®RSC Buffy Coat DNA Kit (Promega GmbH) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For ReliaPrep™ System we adopted the protocol: Lysis 15 min at 56 °C, all steps for mixing at least 20 s. The Maxwell®RSC Kit was applied automatically using the Maxwell® RSC 48 (Promega GmbH). Genotyping was performed on the Illumina Infinium Global Screening Array (GSA) v2.0 (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) using a semiautomated protocol. All laboratory procedures were performed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Illumina raw intensity files (.idat) were uploaded together with the Illumina GSA v2.0 manifest (.bmp) and cluster file (.egt) into the GenomeStudio v2.0 software and genotypes were subsequently exported to PLINK format. Afterwards, coordinates of genetic variants were converted according to the newest human genome build (hg38), as genetic variants were initially aligned to hg19. For this, we used an executable of the liftOver tool provided in the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) Genome Browser tool suite [25] and a wrapper script provided on GitHub [26] for files in PLINK-format.

Quality Control was performed in R software environment (version 3.5.1) [R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/] and with PLINK 27 [Package: PLINK (v1.90b6.12), Author: Shaun Purcell, URL: http://pngu.mgh.harvard.edu/purcell/plink/] [27].

We filterd for chromosomes 1–22 and included them for further analysis. Therefore, we removed genetic variants with no chromosomal information, and variants that lay on mitochondrial chromosomes, on allosomes or on uncommon chromosome variants. Afterwards, we filtered out monomorphic variants that were not in Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (p < 0.0001). Lastly, we checked the Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plots for possible outliers (see Additional file 1: Figure S1, Additional file 2: Figure S2).

Analysis

The baseline characteristics are shown as median with interquartile ranges, or frequencies with percentages. Group differences were tested using Mann–Whitney U test or Chi-Square Test, as appropriate.

GWAS

After quality control, we first performed multiple logistic regression analysis with PLINK in a GWAS approach, with either POD or POCD as the response and each variant as the predictor, adjusting for possible confounding variables. We adjusted for variables that were chosen a priori and included age, CCI and duration of anesthesia for the regression analysis of POD, and age, sex, CCI, education (according to ISCED, with regard to level 1–4 which corresponds to a lower educational level) and duration of anesthesia for the regression analysis of POCD. We considered a p-value threshold of 5 × 10− 8 as genome-wide significant and 1 × 10− 5 as exploratory significant. The retrieved odds ratios associated with variants refer to minor allele counts (0, 1, 2). We visually checked the results by generating a quantile–quantile (Q-Q-plot) and calculating the inflation factor λ (see Additional file 3: Figure S3, Additional file 4: Figure S4).

CGAS

Secondly we investigated genetic variants of cholinergic genes in a candidate gene approach. We have identified cholinergic genes of the cholinergic synapse according to the KEGG pathway [17,18,19]. These includes genes for: acetylcholinesterase (ACHE), choline acetyltransferase (CHAT), high affinity choline transporter (SLC5A7), vesicular acetylcholine transporter (SLC18A3), cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 3 subunit (CHRNA3), cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 4 subunit (CHRNA4), cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 6 subunit (CHRNA6), cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 7 subunit (CHRNA7), cholinergic receptor nicotinic beta 2 subunit (CHRNB2), cholinergic receptor nicotinic beta 4 subunit (CHRNB4), cholinergic receptor muscarinic 1 (CHRM1), cholinergic receptor muscarinic 2 (CHRM2), cholinergic receptor muscarinic 3 (CHRM3), cholinergic receptor muscarinic 4 (CHRM4) and cholinergic receptor muscarinic 5 (CHRM5). We retrieved the respective gene ranges including exons and introns from gene database of the National Center for Biotechnology Information [28].

Here we have applied the identical regression models with the same confounders as for the GWAS approach. For the CGAS, we assumed an exploratory significance level of 0.05 and liberally adjusted the p-values of the variants in each gene via Benjamini–Hochberg correction. Again, odds ratios associated with variants refer to minor allele counts. Statistical analyses were conducted with IBM© SPSS© Statistics, Version 23 [Copyright 1989, 2015 by SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA], as well as R software environment (version 3.5.1) and PLINK 27 [27].

Results

Between October 2014 and April 2017, a total of 1033 patients could be enrolled at the two study sites (Berlin, Germany and Utrecht, Netherlands). Following removal of drop-outs, loss to follow-up and missing data, 745 patients could ultimately be included in the POD analysis, and 452 in the POCD analysis (Fig. 1). The rate of POD within this group was 20.8% (155 patients), and the rate of POCD was 10.2% (46 patients) (see Tables 1 and 2). Patients developing POD were shown to be significantly older, have more comorbidities in terms of CCI scores, and longer duration of anesthesia.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart

Full size image
Table 1 Patient characteristics for POD analysis (n = 745)
Full size table
Table 2 Patient characteristics for POCD analysis (n = 452)
Full size table

Similarly, patients that developed POCD were shown to be older and have higher CCI scores than those that did not, and although there were no differences in duration of anesthesia, there were differences in sex.

GWAS

747,816 variants were included in Quality Control (QC) and 552,759 variants passed QC. Therefore, in total 552,759 genetic variants were analyzed with a total genotyping rate of 0.996 (Fig. 1). In the GWAS approach no locus reached genome-wide significance (5 × 10− 8). When we applied the same level of significance as in a previous report of 1 × 10− 5 [14], we found three variants: rs12423672, rs75787432 and rs12155347 significantly associated with POD (see Fig. 2 and Additional file 5: Table S1). Additionally, two genetic variants: rs116044365 and rs73217998 were significantly associated with POCD (see Fig. 3 and Additional file 5: Table S2). Of these, only rs75787432 (Long Intergenic Non-Protein Coding RNA 669) and rs73217998 (acyl-CoA dehydrogenase family member 11) are located in gene regions.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Manhattan plot for genome-wide association for POD (n = 745)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Manhattan plot for genome-wide association for POCD (n = 452)

Full size image

CGAS

In the candidate gene approach, we could identify three genetic variants of the cholinergic system associated with POD when considering confounding factors (Table 3).

Table 3 Overview over SNPs significantly associated with POD in CGAS approach
Full size table

The single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs8191992 of the CHRM2 gene was significantly associated with POD (Odds ratio (OR): minor allele carriers compared to non-carriers [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.61 [0.46; 0.80], adjusted p-value = 0.01). rs8191992 is a 3′ prime UTR variant (T > A) with a European minor allele frequency (MAF) [29] of 0.46 (T). In addition, another SNP of the CHRM2 gene: rs6962027, which is a 3′ prime UTR variant, too (T > A/T > G) with a European MAF of 0.45 (T), was significantly associated with POD (OR [95% CI], 1.60 [1.22; 2.09], adjusted p-value = 0.01). Furthermore, rs2067482, a synonymous SNP (G > A) of the CHRM4 gene with a European MAF of 0.18 (A), was found to be significantly associated with POD (OR [95% CI], 1.64 [1.10; 2.44], adjusted p-value = 0.03). In our cohort the MAFs are comparable to the European MAFs: rs8191992 = 0.50 (T), rs6962027 = 0.50 (T) and rs2067482 = 0.18 (A).

In POCD analysis, we did not find any genetic variant of the cholinergic system to be significantly associated with POCD in the candidate gene approach.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate whether genetic variants in the cholinergic candidate genes are associated with POD or POCD in elderly patients, and found using a candidate gene approach three genetic variants of the cholinergic genes CHRM2 and CHRM4 to be associated with the development of a POD.

In the research field of delirium, there are so far only two studies that have conducted a GWAS [13, 14], whereas in the field of postoperative neurocognitive disorders (which includes POCD), to the best of our knowledge, no GWAS have yet been published. With regard to POD, a study by McCoy et al. was able to identify a single locus on Chr2 associated with the development of delirium in hospitalized patients [13]. It contained multiple genes, none of these, however, was part of the cholinergic system. The most important aspect to be taken into account in this study is, that delirium was solely defined by an electronic health record–based case definition. There is no information on routine assessment for delirium in the study center, so it is difficult to judge whether the evaluation of the electronic health record can lead to a valid evaluation of delirium incidence in the study population. The stated delirium incidence of 7.5%, may suggest that many delirious cases in this study could be falsely negatively assigned.

A study by Westphal et al. described two SNPs in long intergenic non-protein coding RNAs, which were associated not with genome-wide significance, but with a p-value of < 1 × 10− 5 to the development of POD in patients after non-emergent cardiac surgery [14]. In this study it should be noted that cardio surgical patients are extremely vulnerable to the development of POD, in contrast to our heterogeneous surgical cohort.

In our study, no locus reached genome-wide significance in the GWAS approach, neither for POD nor for POCD. Considering the constraints of the two previous studies: uncertain delirium assessment and failure to achieve genome-wide significance, our results are consistent with this. This can most likely be explained by the fact that these are multifactorial and most likely polygenic diseases, which are difficult to study in a GWAS approach. In addition, the number of participants, both in our study and in the cited ones, is very small for a GWAS approach. If there would be an associated locus with a much lower MAF, we might overlook it in our population due to the small number of cases. However, it is also possible that there is actually no connection or that the effect is too small to see a significant association in these extensive tests. Furthermore, we must take into account that there are factors other than genetic variants that may influence the expression of relevant genes, which could lead to the development of POD and POCD. For example, there are already studies suggesting that epigenetic regulation of mainly proinflammatory [30] and also neurotransmitter genes, especially cholinergic genes [31] may be involved in the development of delirium.

Under these considerations, it seemed reasonable to apply a candidate gene approach. In this approach we have referred to the cholinergic hypothesis. Hereby one supposes that cholinergic neurotransmission plays an important role in cognitive performance, and that cholinergic inhibition could suppress the formation of a circulus vitiosus, where neuroinflammation is maintained by the activation of microglia cells. Van Gool postulated that any dysfunction in cholinergic neurotransmission could hinder this mechanism and promote the development of delirium [12]. Since there is no evidence in the literature indicating which cholinergic genes or variants could be responsible for the disturbance of cholinergic neurotransmission, we decided to investigate all cholinergic genes involved in cholinergic neurotransmission according to the KEGG pathway [19].

In the candidate gene approach we were able to identify an association between genetic variants of the muscarinic cholinergic receptor genes CHRM2 and CHRM4 to be associated with the development of POD. In addition to CHRM1, CHRM2 and CHRM4 are among the most relevant receptors in the CNS. As G-protein-coupled receptors, they activate signaling pathways that are important for synaptic plasticity, the modulation of neuronal excitability, and the feedback regulation of Acetylcholine (Ach) release [32, 33]. The activation of both receptors terminates in the same pathway. Both feedback regulation and synaptic plasticity are transmitted by activating the guanine nucleotide-binding protein [19]. In addition, CHRM2 and CHRM4 receptors are also thought to be related to cognitive performance [34,35,36]. So far, no explicit connection with the development of delirium could be shown. Only in an Asian candidate gene study an association between the CHRM2 gene (rs1824024) and the development of delirium tremens, which is the severe form of alcohol withdrawal, was also shown [37]. Of particular interest was the finding that the genetic variant was not associated with alcohol dependence per se.

The genetic variants (rs8191992, rs6962027 and rs2067482) we have identified have also not been described in the literature in connection with POD and POCD, so far. For rs8191992 an association with intelligence quotient (IQ) [38, 39] and with cognitive flexibility (suppression of no longer relevant information and usage of prior information) [40] was merely described. In addition, rs8191992 was described to predict cardiac mortality after acute myocardial infarction and to determine cardiac function in a postexercise recovery phase [41]. Consistent with this, in another study investigating patients with schizophrenia, it was shown that rs8191992 was associated with decreased activity of the autonomic nervous system [42]. In addition, it was described that rs8191992 has an impact on visual attention when it acts synergistically with another variant of the nicotinic receptor CHRNA4 [43]. In contrast, other studies on cognitive function could not show any impact of rs8191992 [44, 45]. rs6962027 in turn was found to be associated with asthma susceptibility [46] and with poor bronchodilator response in asthmatic patients [47]. And rs2067482 was described to be associated with schizophrenia susceptibility [48].

Strengths and limitations

Important strengths of this study include the prospective multicenter design, as well as the rigorous assessment of POD and POCD. The POCD neuropsychological test battery took into account several cognitive domains, and followed a validated standard with limited rater effects. The R algorithm employed is freely available, allowing comparability of results with other major investigations [49].

However, there are important limitations to this study. One of the major limitations is that with the achieved sample size, GWAS are usually not performed. Nonetheless, given the scarcity of studies and our unique database, we performed a GWAS in an exploratory manner. Furhermore, the incidence of POCD was low (10%), which is likely to limit statistical power. Although many patients were ultimately excluded from the analyses, the incidence of POD and POCD did not differ between the enrolled and analyzed collectives, so that this limitation is not expected to alter the results. Likewise, although patients with POCD tended to have slightly lower CCI scores, the remaining patient characteristics did not differ significantly after patient exclusion. The results were not corrected for multiple testing, as there are no uniform guidelines as to how multiple testing can be considered within CGAS. We decided to consider how many genetic variants were studied per candidate gene. Against this background, the adjusted p-values should not be interpreted as absolute values, but as an orientation to order the impact of the different genetic variants.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found an association between genetic variants of CHRM2 and CHRM4 and the development of POD in a candidate gene approach. Our results are in agreement with the hypothesis that cholinergic neurotransmission and synaptic plasticity are involved in POD. Further studies are needed to investigate these hypotheses.

Availability of data and materials

Since consent for publication of datasets generated and analyzed during the current study has not been given and cannot be obtained since some study participants have already passed away, data are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author (claudia.spies@charite.de) on reasonable request. This procedure is necessary due to the National General Data Protection Regulation (DS-GVO).

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Aldecoa C, Bettelli G, Bilotta F, Sanders RD, Audisio R, Borozdina A, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34(4):192–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moskowitz EE, Overbey DM, Jones TS, Jones EL, Arcomano TR, Moore JT, et al. Post-operative delirium is associated with increased 5-year mortality. Am J Surg. 2017;214(6):1036–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis DH, Muniz Terrera G, Keage H, Rahkonen T, Oinas M, Matthews FE, et al. Delirium is a strong risk factor for dementia in the oldest-old: a population-based cohort study. Brain J Neurol. 2012;135(Pt 9):2809–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Inouye SK, Marcantonio ER, Kosar CM, Tommet D, Schmitt EM, Travison TG, et al. The short-term and long-term relationship between delirium and cognitive trajectory in older surgical patients. Alzheimer’s Dement J Alzheimer’s Assoc. 2016;12(7):766–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Inouye SK. Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1999;10(5):393–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang J, Li Z, Yu Y, Li B, Shao G, Wang Q. Risk factors contributing to postoperative delirium in geriatric patients postorthopedic surgery. Asia-Pac Psychiatry Off J Pac Rim Coll Psychiatr. 2015;7(4):375–82.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dunne SS, Coffey JC, Konje S, Gasior S, Clancy CC, Gulati G, et al. Biomarkers in delirium: a systematic review. J Psychosom Res. 2021;147:110530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Munster BC, de Rooij SE, Korevaar JC. The role of genetics in delirium in the elderly patient. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2009;28(3):187–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sepulveda E, Adamis D, Franco JG, Meagher D, Aranda S, Vilella E. The complex interaction of genetics and delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2021;271(5):929–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maldonado JR. Acute brain failure: pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and sequelae of delirium. Crit Care Clin. 2017;33(3):461–519.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Gool WA, van de Beek D, Eikelenboom P. Systemic infection and delirium: when cytokines and acetylcholine collide. Lancet (Lond, Engl). 2010;375(9716):773–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McCoy TH Jr, Hart K, Pellegrini A, Perlis RH. Genome-wide association identifies a novel locus for delirium risk. Neurobiol Aging. 2018;68:160.e9-160.e14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Westphal S, Stoppe C, Gruenewald M, Bein B, Renner J, Cremer J, et al. Genome-wide association study of myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, acute stroke, acute kidney injury and delirium after cardiac surgery—a sub-analysis of the RIPHeart-Study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2019;19(1):26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Goodall R. Cholinesterase: phenotyping and genotyping. Ann Clin Biochem. 2004;41(Pt 2):98–110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shenhar-Tsarfaty S, Berliner S, Bornstein NM, Soreq H. Cholinesterases as biomarkers for parasympathetic dysfunction and inflammation-related disease. J Mol Neurosci MN. 2014;53(3):298–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):27–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Furumichi M, Morishima K, Tanabe M. New approach for understanding genome variations in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D590–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. KEGG. Cholinergic synapse—Reference pathway 2020. https://www.kegg.jp/kegg-bin/highlight_pathway?scale=1.0&map=map04725&keyword=cholinergic.

  20. Winterer G, Androsova G, Bender O, Boraschi D, Borchers F, Dschietzig TB, et al. Personalized risk prediction of postoperative cognitive impairment—rationale for the EU-funded BioCog project. Eur Psychiatry J Assoc Eur Psychiatr. 2018;50:34–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Heinrich M, Müller A, Lammers-Lietz F, Borchers F, Mörgeli R, Kruppa J, et al. Radiological, chemical and pharmacological cholinergic system parameters and neurocognitive disorders in older pre-surgical adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;76:1029–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heinrich M, Nottbrock A, Borchers F, Mörgeli R, Kruppa J, Winterer G, et al. Preoperative medication use and development of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction. Clin Transl Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13031.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Heinrich M, Müller A, Cvijan A, Mörgeli R, Kruppa J, Winterer G, et al. Preoperative comparison of three anticholinergic drug scales in older adult patients and development of postoperative delirium: a prospective observational study. Drugs Aging. 2021;38(4):347–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. (UCSC) UoCSC. Lift Genome Annotations. https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgLiftOver.

  26. (UCSC) UoCSC. liftOverPlink. https://github.com/sritchie73/liftOverPlink.

  27. Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D, et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81(3):559–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US) NCfBI. Gene [Internet]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/ (2004).

  29. Phan YJL, Zhang H, Qiang W, Shekhtman E, Shao D, Revoe D, Villamarin R, Ivanchenko E, Kimura M, Wang ZY, Hao L, Sharopova N, Bihan M, Sturcke A, Lee M, Popova N, Wu W, Bastiani C, Ward M, Holmes JB, Lyoshin V, Kaur K, Moyer E, Feolo M, Kattman BL. "ALFA: Allele Frequency Aggregator." National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/docs/gsr/alfa/ (2020).

  30. Shinozaki G, Braun PR, Hing BWQ, Ratanatharathorn A, Klisares MJ, Duncan GN, et al. Epigenetics of delirium and aging: potential role of DNA methylation change on cytokine genes in glia and blood along with aging. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018;10:311.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Saito T, Toda H, Duncan GN, Jellison SS, Yu T, Klisares MJ, et al. Epigenetics of neuroinflammation: immune response, inflammatory response and cholinergic synaptic involvement evidenced by genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of delirious inpatients. J Psychiatr Res. 2020;129:61–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Volpicelli LA, Levey AI. Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes in cerebral cortex and hippocampus. Prog Brain Res. 2004;145:59–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lebois EP, Thorn C, Edgerton JR, Popiolek M, Xi S. Muscarinic receptor subtype distribution in the central nervous system and relevance to aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropharmacology. 2018;136(Pt C):362–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Seeger T, Fedorova I, Zheng F, Miyakawa T, Koustova E, Gomeza J, et al. M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knock-out mice show deficits in behavioral flexibility, working memory, and hippocampal plasticity. J Neurosci. 2004;24(45):10117–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Carey GJ, Billard W, Binch H 3rd, Cohen-Williams M, Crosby G, Grzelak M, et al. SCH 57790, a selective muscarinic M(2) receptor antagonist, releases acetylcholine and produces cognitive enhancement in laboratory animals. Eur J Pharmacol. 2001;431(2):189–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Popiolek M, Mandelblat-Cerf Y, Young D, Garst-Orozco J, Lotarski SM, Stark E, et al. In vivo modulation of hippocampal excitability by M4 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor activator: implications for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenic patients. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2019;10(3):1091–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Malhotra S, Basu D, Ghosh A, Khullar M, Chugh N, Kakkar N. An exploratory study of candidate gene(s) for Delirium Tremens: adding the new cholinergic dimension to the conundrum. Asian J Psychiatr. 2018;31:137–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Comings DE, Wu S, Rostamkhani M, McGue M, Lacono WG, Cheng LS, et al. Role of the cholinergic muscarinic 2 receptor (CHRM2) gene in cognition. Mol Psychiatry. 2003;8(1):10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dick DM, Aliev F, Kramer J, Wang JC, Hinrichs A, Bertelsen S, et al. Association of CHRM2 with IQ: converging evidence for a gene influencing intelligence. Behav Genet. 2007;37(2):265–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zink N, Bensmann W, Arning L, Stock AK, Beste C. CHRM2 genotype affects inhibitory control mechanisms during cognitive flexibility. Mol Neurobiol. 2019;56(9):6134–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hautala AJ, Tulppo MP, Kiviniemi AM, Rankinen T, Bouchard C, Mäkikallio TH, et al. Acetylcholine receptor M2 gene variants, heart rate recovery, and risk of cardiac death after an acute myocardial infarction. Ann Med. 2009;41(3):197–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Miyauchi M, Kishida I, Suda A, Shiraishi Y, Hattori S, Fujibayashi M, et al. Association of the cholinergic muscarinic M2 receptor with autonomic nervous system activity in patients with schizophrenia on high-dose antipsychotics. Neuropsychobiology. 2016;74(1):60–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Greenwood PM, Lin MK, Sundararajan R, Fryxell KJ, Parasuraman R. Synergistic effects of genetic variation in nicotinic and muscarinic receptors on visual attention but not working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(9):3633–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Lind PA, Luciano M, Horan MA, Marioni RE, Wright MJ, Bates TC, et al. No association between Cholinergic Muscarinic Receptor 2 (CHRM2) genetic variation and cognitive abilities in three independent samples. Behav Genet. 2009;39(5):513–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Harris SE, Fox H, Wright AF, Hayward C, Starr JM, Whalley LJ, et al. A genetic association analysis of cognitive ability and cognitive ageing using 325 markers for 109 genes associated with oxidative stress or cognition. BMC Genet. 2007;8:43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Jiménez-Morales S, Jiménez-Ruíz JL, Del Río-Navarro BE, Navarro-Olivos E, Escamilla-Guerrero G, Savan R, et al. CHRM2 but not CHRM1 or CHRM3 polymorphisms are associated with asthma susceptibility in Mexican patients. Mol Biol Rep. 2014;41(4):2109–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Szczepankiewicz A, Breborowicz A, Sobkowiak P, Kramer L, Popiel A. Association of A/T polymorphism of the CHRM2 gene with bronchodilator response to ipratropium bromide in asthmatic children. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 2009;77(1):5–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Scarr E, Um JY, Cowie TF, Dean B. Cholinergic muscarinic M4 receptor gene polymorphisms: a potential risk factor and pharmacogenomic marker for schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2013;146(1–3):279–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Spies CD, Knaak C, Mertens M, Brockhaus WR, Shadenok A, Wiebach J, et al. Physostigmine for prevention of postoperative delirium and long-term cognitive dysfunction in liver surgery: a double-blinded randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021;38:943–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Konstanze Scheurer (Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin) for the administrative support with study coordination and management. Judy Veldhuijzen (UMC Utrecht), Antje Kraft (Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Simone Kühn (University of Hamburg) and Insa Feinkohl (Max-Delbrück Center Berlin) provided additional neuropsychological expertise. Kathrin Scholtz supported the study as the clinical monitor. Henning Krampe supported the study by recruiting and supervising students for neuropsychological testing. Data management was provided by Olaf Bender and Alexander Krannich at Koordininierungszentrum für Klinische Studien (KKS Berlin) supported by Pharmaimage Biomarkers Solutions GmbH. We thank our team of investigators, medical doctoral students and study nurses: Alissa Wolf, Fatima Yürek, Daniel Hadzidiakos, Friedrich Borchers, Rudolf Mörgeli, Anika Müller, Ilse Kant, Simone van Montfort, Gunnar Lachmann, Anika Alon, Sina Rosenblender, Tuba Aslan, Markus Laubach, Felix Müller, Emmanuel Keller, Eleftheria Papadaki, Saya Speidel, Bennet Borak, Steffi Herferth, Johannes Lange, Mario Lamping, Helene Michler, Juliane Dörfler, Anton Jacobshagen, Petra Kozma, Marinus Fislage, Wolf Rüdiger Brockhaus, Luisa Rothe, Pola Neuling, Ken-Dieter Michel, Zdravka Bosancic, Firas Nosirat, Maryam Kurpanik, Sophia Kuenz, Lukas Roediger, Irene Mergele, Anja Nottbrock, Leopold Rupp, Marie Graunke, and Victoria Windmann. The authors further wish to thank the team of the student and interns of the Department of Anesthesiology at the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. We also thank Sarah Moreno Garcia for DNA preparation and Biobank management. Stefan Mundlos provided additional expertise for genetic analyses within the BIH-Charité Junior Clinician Scientist Program. Maria Heinrich is participant in the BIH-Charité Digital Clinician Scientist Program funded by the Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health. This program was initiated and led by Prof. Dr. Duska Dragun to enable resident physicians to pursue a career in digital health and academic research. With great sadness we have received the news that Prof. Dragun passed away on December 28th of 2020. This publication is dedicated to her as a mentor, role model and stellar scientist.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was conducted with support of the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007–2013] as part of the BioCog project (Biomarker Development for Postoperative Cognitive Impairment in the Elderly), under grant Agreement N° 602461. Markus M. Nöthen is a member of the DFG-funded Excellence Cluster ImmunoSensation2 (EXC 2151 – 390873048). The sponsor had no influence on the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of data, nor was it at any point involved in the manuscript development.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Georg Winterer and Claudia D. Spies contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Berlin, Germany

    Maria Heinrich, Jochen Kruppa, Georg Winterer & Claudia D. Spies

  2. Berlin Institute of Health at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Maria Heinrich, Miriam Sieg, Jochen Kruppa & Tobias Pischon

  3. Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Medical Informatics, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Miriam Sieg & Jochen Kruppa

  4. QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany

    Miriam Sieg

  5. Institute of Genetics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Peter Nürnberg & Peter H. Schreier

  6. Atlas Biolabs GmbH, Berlin, Germany

    Peter Nürnberg

  7. Pharmaimage Biomarker Solutions GmbH, Berlin, Germany

    Peter H. Schreier & Georg Winterer

  8. Institute of Human Genetics, School of Medicine and University Hospital Bonn, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Stefanie Heilmann-Heimbach, Per Hoffmann & Markus M. Nöthen

  9. Human Genomics Research Group, Department of Biomedicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Per Hoffmann

  10. MDC/BIH Biobank, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany

    Jürgen Janke & Tobias Pischon

  11. Molecular Epidemiology Research Group, Max-Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany

    Tobias Pischon

  12. Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Tobias Pischon

  13. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Arjen J. C. Slooter

  14. UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Arjen J. C. Slooter

  15. Department of Neurology, UZ Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Arjen J. C. Slooter

  16. Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, ECRC Experimental and Clinical Research Center, Lindenberger Weg 80, 13125, Berlin, Germany

    Georg Winterer

Authors
  1. Maria Heinrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miriam Sieg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jochen Kruppa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Nürnberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter H. Schreier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefanie Heilmann-Heimbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Per Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Markus M. Nöthen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jürgen Janke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tobias Pischon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Arjen J. C. Slooter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Georg Winterer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Claudia D. Spies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Maria Heinrich, Stefanie Heilmann-Heimbach, Per Hoffmann, Markus M. Nöthen, Jürgen Janke, Tobias Pischon and Peter Nürnberg were involved in data collection and plausibility checks. Maria Heinrich, Peter Nürnberg, Peter Schreier, Georg Winterer and Claudia Spies developed the research question. Maria Heinrich, Miriam Sieg and Jochen Kruppa carried out the analyses. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Maria Heinrich and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Georg Winterer, Arjen Slooter, Tobias Pischon and Claudia Spies designed and directed the BioCog project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia D. Spies.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The project was approved by the Ethics Committees from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Ethikkommission, Ethikausschuss 2 am Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Reference EA2/092/14) and from the University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands (Medisch Ethische Toetsingscommissie, UMC Utrecht, Reference 14/469). The study was performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and registered in an international database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02265263).

Consent to participate/Consent for publication

All patients were required to provide written informed consent, and all relevant data protection regulations were followed.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1

. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Plots for the detection of outliers in POD analysis (n = 745). Different colourscales indicate disease status POD (0 = No POD, 1 = POD). No individuals were removed. (A–F) indicate different components in comparison.

Additional file 2: Figure S2

. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Plots for the detection of outliers in POCD analysis (n = 452). Different colourscales indicate disease status POD (0 = No POD, 1 = POD). No individuals were removed. (A–F) indicate different components in comparison.

Additional file 3: Figure S3

. Quantile–Quantile-Plot (Q-Q-Plot) of genome-wide association results for POD (n = 745).

Additional file 4: Figure S4

. Quantile–Quantile-Plot (Q-Q-Plot) of genome-wide association results for POCD (n = 452).

Additional file 5: Table S1

. Overview over SNPs exploratively associated with POD in GWAS approach. Table S2. Overview over SNPs exploratively associated with POCD in GWAS approach. Table S3. Overview of the total number of SNPs examined per cholinergic gene

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heinrich, M., Sieg, M., Kruppa, J. et al. Association between genetic variants of the cholinergic system and postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients. BMC Med Genomics 14, 248 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-021-01071-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-021-01071-1

Keywords

BMC Medical Genomics

ISSN: 1755-8794

Contact us