G C Chiang1, W Zhan, N Schuff, M W Weiner. 1. Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA. gloria.chiang@ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The basis for decreased vulnerability to AD among apoE ε2 carriers is unknown. The purpose of this study was to use diffusion tensor imaging to detect possible differences in white matter integrity between cognitively normal elderly apoE ε2 carriers and apoE ε3/ε3 controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine cognitively normal elderly individuals (19 heterozygous carriers of the apoE ε2 allele, 20 apoE ε3/ε3 subjects as controls) underwent diffusion tensor MR imaging on a 4T scanner. Fractional anisotropy, MD, and axial and radial diffusivity were compared using a ROI approach. In addition, an exploratory whole-brain analysis of fractional anisotropy between the 2 groups was undertaken using TBSS. RESULTS: apoE ε2 carriers had higher FA in the posterior cingulate white matter (P = .01) and anterior corpus callosum (P = .005) than apoE ε3/ε3 controls, secondary to lower radial diffusivity. No significant differences in the FA of the posterior corpus callosum, anterior cingulate white matter, or parahippocampal white matter were seen. Whole-brain TBSS analysis detected regions of higher FA in the apoE ε2 group in the superior longitudinal fasciculus, right thalamus, and the bilateral anterior limbs of the internal capsule, in addition to the posterior cingulum and corpus callosum (P < .005). There were no regions in which the apoE ε3/ε3 group had higher FA. CONCLUSIONS: apoE ε2 carriers harbor more robust white matter integrity that may be associated with decreased vulnerability to developing AD. This provides further evidence that regional DTI metrics may serve as early imaging biomarkers of AD risk.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The basis for decreased vulnerability to AD among apoE ε2 carriers is unknown. The purpose of this study was to use diffusion tensor imaging to detect possible differences in white matter integrity between cognitively normal elderly apoE ε2 carriers and apoE ε3/ε3 controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine cognitively normal elderly individuals (19 heterozygous carriers of the apoE ε2 allele, 20 apoE ε3/ε3 subjects as controls) underwent diffusion tensor MR imaging on a 4T scanner. Fractional anisotropy, MD, and axial and radial diffusivity were compared using a ROI approach. In addition, an exploratory whole-brain analysis of fractional anisotropy between the 2 groups was undertaken using TBSS. RESULTS:apoE ε2 carriers had higher FA in the posterior cingulate white matter (P = .01) and anterior corpus callosum (P = .005) than apoE ε3/ε3 controls, secondary to lower radial diffusivity. No significant differences in the FA of the posterior corpus callosum, anterior cingulate white matter, or parahippocampal white matter were seen. Whole-brain TBSS analysis detected regions of higher FA in the apoE ε2 group in the superior longitudinal fasciculus, right thalamus, and the bilateral anterior limbs of the internal capsule, in addition to the posterior cingulum and corpus callosum (P < .005). There were no regions in which the apoE ε3/ε3 group had higher FA. CONCLUSIONS:apoE ε2 carriers harbor more robust white matter integrity that may be associated with decreased vulnerability to developing AD. This provides further evidence that regional DTI metrics may serve as early imaging biomarkers of AD risk.
Authors: S E Rose; F Chen; J B Chalk; F O Zelaya; W E Strugnell; M Benson; J Semple; D M Doddrell Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: G C Chiang; P S Insel; D Tosun; N Schuff; D Truran-Sacrey; S T Raptentsetsang; C R Jack; P S Aisen; R C Petersen; M W Weiner Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Charles D Smith; Himachandra Chebrolu; Anders H Andersen; David A Powell; Mark A Lovell; Shuling Xiong; Brian T Gold Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: M Bozzali; A Falini; M Franceschi; M Cercignani; M Zuffi; G Scotti; G Comi; M Filippi Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: D H Salat; D S Tuch; A J W van der Kouwe; D N Greve; V Pappu; S Y Lee; N D Hevelone; A K Zaleta; J H Growdon; S Corkin; B Fischl; H D Rosas Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Barry Reisberg; Emile H Franssen; Liduïn E M Souren; Stefanie R Auer; Imran Akram; Sunnie Kenowsky Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2002 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: M Habes; J B Toledo; S M Resnick; J Doshi; S Van der Auwera; G Erus; D Janowitz; K Hegenscheid; G Homuth; H Völzke; W Hoffmann; H J Grabe; C Davatzikos Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Curtis Triebswetter; Matthew Kiely; Nikkita Khattar; Luigi Ferrucci; Susan M Resnick; Richard G Spencer; Mustapha Bouhrara Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michela Pievani; Nicola Filippini; Martijn P van den Heuvel; Stefano F Cappa; Giovanni B Frisoni Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Linda Chang; Vanessa Douet; Cinnamon Bloss; Kristin Lee; Alexandra Pritchett; Terry L Jernigan; Natacha Akshoomoff; Sarah S Murray; Jean Frazier; David N Kennedy; David G Amaral; Jeffrey Gruen; Walter E Kaufmann; B J Casey; Elizabeth Sowell; Thomas Ernst Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Thomas Alderson; Elizabeth Kehoe; Liam Maguire; Dervla Farrell; Brian Lawlor; Rose A Kenny; Declan Lyons; Arun L W Bokde; Damien Coyle Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 5.750