OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the relationship of amyloid, seen on Pittsburgh compound B (PiB)-PET, and metabolism, seen on [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET, in normal subjects to better understand pathogenesis and biomarker selection in presymptomatic subjects. METHODS: Normal participants (aged 70-95 years; 600 with PiB-PET, FDG-PET, and MRI) were included. We performed a cross-sectional evaluation and subcategorized participants into amyloid-negative (<1.4), high-normal (1.4-1.5), positive (1.5-2.0), and markedly positive (>2.0) PiB standardized uptake value ratio groups representing different levels of amyloid brain load. Associations with metabolism were assessed in each group. Relationships with APOE ε4 carriage were evaluated. RESULTS: Hypometabolism in "Alzheimer disease (AD)-signature" regions was strongly associated with PiB load. Hypometabolism was greater with more positive PiB levels. Additional, more-diffuse cortical hypometabolism was also found to be associated with PiB, although less so. No hypermetabolism was seen in any subset. No significant incremental hypometabolism was seen in APOE-positive vs -negative subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Hypometabolism in PiB-positive, cognitively normal subjects in a population-based cohort occurs in AD-signature cortical regions and to a lesser extent in other cortical regions. It is more pronounced with higher amyloid load and supports a dose-dependent association. The effect of APOE ε4 carriage in this group of subjects does not appear to modify their hypometabolic "AD-like" neurodegeneration. Consideration of hypometabolism associated with amyloid load may aid trials of AD drug therapy.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the relationship of amyloid, seen on Pittsburgh compound B (PiB)-PET, and metabolism, seen on [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET, in normal subjects to better understand pathogenesis and biomarker selection in presymptomatic subjects. METHODS: Normal participants (aged 70-95 years; 600 with PiB-PET, FDG-PET, and MRI) were included. We performed a cross-sectional evaluation and subcategorized participants into amyloid-negative (<1.4), high-normal (1.4-1.5), positive (1.5-2.0), and markedly positive (>2.0) PiB standardized uptake value ratio groups representing different levels of amyloid brain load. Associations with metabolism were assessed in each group. Relationships with APOE ε4 carriage were evaluated. RESULTS:Hypometabolism in "Alzheimer disease (AD)-signature" regions was strongly associated with PiB load. Hypometabolism was greater with more positive PiB levels. Additional, more-diffuse cortical hypometabolism was also found to be associated with PiB, although less so. No hypermetabolism was seen in any subset. No significant incremental hypometabolism was seen in APOE-positive vs -negative subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Hypometabolism in PiB-positive, cognitively normal subjects in a population-based cohort occurs in AD-signature cortical regions and to a lesser extent in other cortical regions. It is more pronounced with higher amyloid load and supports a dose-dependent association. The effect of APOE ε4 carriage in this group of subjects does not appear to modify their hypometabolic "AD-like" neurodegeneration. Consideration of hypometabolism associated with amyloid load may aid trials of AD drug therapy.
Authors: Kejal Kantarci; Val J Lowe; Bradley F Boeve; Stephen D Weigand; Matthew L Senjem; Scott A Przybelski; Dennis W Dickson; Joseph E Parisi; David S Knopman; Glenn E Smith; Tanis J Ferman; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Yun-An Lim; Virginie Rhein; Ginette Baysang; Fides Meier; Anne Poljak; Mark J Raftery; Michael Guilhaus; Lars M Ittner; Anne Eckert; Jürgen Götz Journal: Proteomics Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Henry Engler; Anton Forsberg; Ove Almkvist; Gunnar Blomquist; Emma Larsson; Irina Savitcheva; Anders Wall; Anna Ringheim; Bengt Långström; Agneta Nordberg Journal: Brain Date: 2006-07-19 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Samantha Burnham; Pierrick Bourgeat; Belinda Brown; Kathryn A Ellis; Olivier Salvado; Cassandra Szoeke; S Lance Macaulay; Ralph Martins; Paul Maruff; David Ames; Christopher C Rowe; Colin L Masters Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Samuel I A Cohen; Sara Linse; Leila M Luheshi; Erik Hellstrand; Duncan A White; Luke Rajah; Daniel E Otzen; Michele Vendruscolo; Christopher M Dobson; Tuomas P J Knowles Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Miguel Ángel Araque Caballero; Matthias Brendel; Andreas Delker; Jinyi Ren; Axel Rominger; Peter Bartenstein; Martin Dichgans; Michael W Weiner; Michael Ewers Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Neelesh K Nadkarni; Oscar L Lopez; Subashan Perera; Stephanie A Studenski; Beth E Snitz; Kirk I Erickson; Chester A Mathis; Robert D Nebes; Mark Redfern; William E Klunk Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stefanie Schreiber; Frank Schreiber; Samuel N Lockhart; Andy Horng; Alexandre Bejanin; Susan M Landau; William J Jagust Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Felix Carbonell; Alex P Zijdenbos; Donald G McLaren; Yasser Iturria-Medina; Barry J Bedell Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: L Glodzik; A Kuceyeski; H Rusinek; W Tsui; L Mosconi; Y Li; R S Osorio; S Williams; C Randall; N Spector; P McHugh; J Murray; E Pirraglia; S Vallabhajosula; A Raj; M J de Leon Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 6.556