Neill R Graff-Radford1. 1. From the Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL. graffradford.neill@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article discusses why CSF biomarkers found in normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) can be misleading when distinguishing NPH from comorbid NPH with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: We describe NPH CSF biomarkers and how shunt surgery can change them. We hypothesize the effects that hydrocephalus may play on interstitial fluid space and amyloid precursor protein (APP) fragment drainage into the CSF based on a recent report and how this may explain the misleading CSF NPH biomarker findings. RESULTS: In NPH, β-amyloid protein 42 (Aβ42) is low (as in AD), but total tau (t-tau) and phospho-tau (p-tau) levels are normal, providing conflicting biomarker findings. Low Aβ42 supports an AD diagnosis but tau findings do not. Importantly, not only Aβ42, but all APP fragments and tau proteins are low in NPH CSF. Further, these proteins increase after shunting. An increase in interstitial space and APP fragment drainage into the CSF during sleep was reported recently. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of hydrocephalus when the brain is compressed, a decrease in interstitial space and APP protein fragment drainage into the CSF may be impeded, resulting in low levels of all APP fragments and tau proteins, which has been reported. Shunting, which decompresses the brain, would create more room for the interstitial space to increase and protein waste fragments to drain into the CSF. In fact, CSF proteins increase after shunting. CSF biomarkers in pre-shunt NPH have low Aβ42 and tau protein levels, providing misleading information to distinguish NPH from comorbid NPH plus AD.
OBJECTIVE: This article discusses why CSF biomarkers found in normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) can be misleading when distinguishing NPH from comorbid NPH with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: We describe NPH CSF biomarkers and how shunt surgery can change them. We hypothesize the effects that hydrocephalus may play on interstitial fluid space and amyloid precursor protein (APP) fragment drainage into the CSF based on a recent report and how this may explain the misleading CSF NPH biomarker findings. RESULTS: In NPH, β-amyloid protein 42 (Aβ42) is low (as in AD), but total tau (t-tau) and phospho-tau (p-tau) levels are normal, providing conflicting biomarker findings. Low Aβ42 supports an AD diagnosis but tau findings do not. Importantly, not only Aβ42, but all APP fragments and tau proteins are low in NPH CSF. Further, these proteins increase after shunting. An increase in interstitial space and APP fragment drainage into the CSF during sleep was reported recently. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of hydrocephalus when the brain is compressed, a decrease in interstitial space and APP protein fragment drainage into the CSF may be impeded, resulting in low levels of all APP fragments and tau proteins, which has been reported. Shunting, which decompresses the brain, would create more room for the interstitial space to increase and protein waste fragments to drain into the CSF. In fact, CSF proteins increase after shunting. CSF biomarkers in pre-shunt NPH have low Aβ42 and tau protein levels, providing misleading information to distinguish NPH from comorbid NPH plus AD.
Authors: Hugo Vanderstichele; Mirko Bibl; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Nathalie Le Bastard; Piotr Lewczuk; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Lucilla Parnetti; Armand Perret-Liaudet; Leslie M Shaw; Charlotte Teunissen; Dirk Wouters; Kaj Blennow Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: E N Kapaki; G P Paraskevas; N G Tzerakis; C Sfagos; A Seretis; E Kararizou; D Vassilopoulos Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: A Agren-Wilsson; A Lekman; W Sjöberg; L Rosengren; K Blennow; A T Bergenheim; J Malm Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Marta Picascia; Roberta Zangaglia; Sara Bernini; Brigida Minafra; Elena Sinforiani; Claudio Pacchetti Journal: Funct Neurol Date: 2015 Oct-Dec
Authors: Hyemin Jang; Seong Beom Park; Yeshin Kim; Ko Woon Kim; Jung Il Lee; Sung Tae Kim; Kyung Han Lee; Eun-Suk Kang; Yeong Sim Choe; Sang Won Seo; Hee Jin Kim; Yeo Jin Kim; Cindy W Yoon; Duk L Na Journal: J Neurol Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Madison Niermeyer; Chad Gaudet; Paul Malloy; Irene Piryatinsky; Stephen Salloway; Petra Klinge; Athene Lee Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Jonathan Graff-Radford; David T Jones; Heather J Wiste; Petrice M Cogswell; Stephen D Weigand; Val Lowe; Benjamin D Elder; Prashanthi Vemuri; Argonde Van Harten; Michelle M Mielke; David S Knopman; Neill R Graff-Radford; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey L Gunter Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Lealani Mae Y Acosta; Kassandra Stubblefield; Trisha Conwell; Kiersten Espaillat; Heather Koons; Peter Konrad; John Fang; Howard Kirshner; Thomas Davis Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2021-08
Authors: Jonathan Graff-Radford; Jeffrey L Gunter; David T Jones; Scott A Przybelski; Christopher G Schwarz; John Huston; Val Lowe; Benjamin D Elder; Mary M Machulda; Nathaniel B Gunter; Ronald C Petersen; Kejal Kantarci; Prashanthi Vemuri; Michelle M Mielke; David S Knopman; Neill R Graff-Radford; Clifford R Jack Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Karolina Minta; Anna Jeppsson; Gunnar Brinkmalm; Erik Portelius; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Mats Tullberg; Ulf Andreasson Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2021-05-13