RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Heterogeneous distribution of tau pathology in the behavioral variant of Alzheimer’s disease
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.18.20188276
DO 10.1101/2020.09.18.20188276
A1 Singleton, Ellen H.
A1 Hansson, Oskar
A1 Pijnenburg, Yolande A. M.
A1 Joie, Renaud La
A1 Mantyh, William G.
A1 Tideman, Pontus
A1 Stomrud, Erik
A1 Leuzy, Antoine
A1 Johansson, Maurits
A1 Strandberg, Olof
A1 Smith, Ruben
A1 Berendrecht, Evi
A1 Miller, Bruce
A1 Iaccarino, Leonardo
A1 Edwards, Lauren
A1 Storm, Amelia
A1 Wolters, Emma
A1 Coomans, Emma M.
A1 Visser, Denise
A1 Golla, Sandeep S.V.
A1 Tuncel, Hayel
A1 Bouwman, Femke
A1 Swieten, John van
A1 Papma, Janne M.
A1 Berckel, Bart van
A1 Scheltens, Philip
A1 Dijkstra, Anke A.
A1 Rabinovici, Gil
A1 Ossenkoppele, Rik
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.18.20188276.abstract
AB Objective The clinical phenotype of the rare behavioral variant of Alzheimer’s disease (bvAD) is insufficiently understood. Given the strong clinico-anatomical correlations of tau pathology in AD, we investigated the distribution of tau deposits in bvAD, in-vivo and ex-vivo, using PET and postmortem examination.Methods For the tau PET study, seven amyloid-P positive bvAD patients underwent [18F]flortaucipir or [18F]RO948 PET. We converted tau PET uptake values into standardized (W-)scores, by adjusting for age, sex and MMSE in a “typical” memory-predominant AD (n=205) group. W-scores were computed within entorhinal, temporoparietal, medial and lateral prefrontal, insular and whole-brain regions-of-interest, frontal-to-entorhinal and frontal-to-parietal ratios and within intrinsic functional connectivity network templates. For the postmortem study, the percentage of AT8 (tau)-positive area in hippocampus CA1, temporal, parietal, frontal and insular cortices were compared between autopsy-confirmed bvAD (n=8) and typical AD (n=7) patients.Results Regional W-scores ≥1.96 (corresponding to p<0.05) were observed in three cases, i.e. case #5: medial prefrontal cortex (W=2.13) and anterior default mode network (W=3.79), case #2: lateral prefrontal cortex (W=2.79) and salience network (W=2.77), and case #7: frontal-to-entorhinal ratio (W=2.04). The remaining four cases fell within the normal distributions of the typical AD group. Postmortem AT8 staining indicated no regional differences in phosphorylated tau levels between bvAD and typical AD (all p>0.05).Conclusion Both in-vivo and ex-vivo, bvAD patients showed heterogeneous patterns of tau pathology. Since key regions involved in behavioral regulation were not consistently disproportionally affected by tau pathology, other factors are more likely driving the clinical phenotype in bvAD.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementWork at the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, ZonMw (70-73305-98-1214 to Rik Ossenkoppele, PI). Research of the Alzheimer center Amsterdam is part of the neurodegeneration research program of Amsterdam Neuroscience. The Alzheimer Center Amsterdam is supported by Stichting Alzheimer Nederland and Stichting VUmc fonds. Work at the University of California San Francisco was supported by the NIH National Institute on Aging (NIA) grants R01-AG045611 (to G.D.R.) and the Robert W. Katzman Fellowship Training Grant through the American Academy of Neurology in conjunction with the American Brain Foundation and Alzheimer's Association (A133766) to (to W.G.M.), as well as funding for Aging and Dementia Research Center (NIA P30-AG062422) and PPG (NIA P01-AG019724). Work at the Skane University Hospital and Lund University was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg foundation, the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the Skane University Hospital Foundation, and the Swedish federal government under the ALF agreement.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Informed consent was obtained from all subjects or their assigned surrogate decision-makers, and the study was approved by the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Memory and Aging Center Clinic at the University of California San Francisco and the Memory Clinic Skane University Hospital institutional human research review boards.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data is available upon request.