| Literature DB >> 27798653 |
Yu Zhang1,2, I-Wei Wu1,2, Duygu Tosun1,2, Eric Foster3, Norbert Schuff1,2.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the utility of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in measuring the regional distribution of abnormal microstructural progression in patients with Parkinson's disease who were enrolled in the Parkinson's progression marker initiative (PPMI). One hundred and twenty two de-novo PD patients (age = 60.5±9) and 50 healthy controls (age = 60.6±11) had DTI scans at baseline and 12.6±1 months later. Automated image processing included an intra-subject registration of all time points and an inter-subjects registration to a brain atlas. Annualized rates of DTI variations including fractional anisotropy (FA), radial (rD) and axial (aD) diffusivity were estimated in a total of 118 white matter and subcortical regions of interest. A mixed effects model framework was used to determine the degree to which DTI changes differed in PD relative to changes in healthy subjects. Significant DTI changes were also tested for correlations with changes in clinical measures, dopaminergic imaging and CSF biomarkers in PD patients. Compared to normal aging, PD was associated with higher rates of FA reduction, rD and aD increases predominantly in the substantia nigra, midbrain and thalamus. The highest rates of FA reduction involved the substantia nigra (3.6±1.4%/year from baseline, whereas the highest rates of increased diffusivity involved the thalamus (rD: 8.0±2.9%/year, aD: 4.0±1.5%/year). In PD patients, high DTI changes in the substantia nigra correlated with increasing dopaminergic deficits as well as with declining α-synuclein and total tau protein concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid. Increased DTI rates in the thalamus correlated with progressive decline in global cognition in PD. The results suggest that higher rates of regional microstructural degeneration are potential markers of PD progression.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27798653 PMCID: PMC5087900 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165540
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Sample selection process.
Fig 2Flowchart of longitudinal DTI data processing.
FA = fractional anisotropy; rD = radial diffusivity; aD = axial diffusivity; WM = white matter; GW = gray matter. MNI = Montreal Neurological Institute.
Demographics.
| Baseline | Changes per year | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC | PD | PD vs. HC | HC | PD | PD vs. HC | |||||
| Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | Changes | Changes | Changes | ||||
| No. of Subjects | 50 | 122 | — | — | — | — | ||||
| Age at MRI | 60.6±11 | 60.5±9 | 0.92 | — | — | — | ||||
| Sex (% of Male) | 64% | 65% | 0.92 | — | — | — | ||||
| MRI interval (month) | 12.7±1 | 12.6±1 | 0.90 | — | — | — | ||||
| Side of symptom | — | 51L: 70R: 1Sym | — | — | — | — | ||||
| No. of medication | — | 46 OFF: 76 ON | — | — | — | — | ||||
| total UPDRS | 3.0±3.3 | 3.9±4.0 | 30.5±13 | 35.8±16 | 0.9±0.4 | |||||
| UPDRS-III | 0.6±1.5 | 1.0±1.9 | 20.4±9 | 22.4±10 | 0.4±0.2 | 1.6±1.1 | 0.17 | |||
| Hoehn-Yahr | 0.0±0.0 | 0.1±0.3 | 1.6±0.5 | 1.8±0.5 | 0.0±0.0 | |||||
| MoCA | 28.3±1.1 | 27.3±2.1 | 27.5±2.1 | 26.8±2.8 | 0.21±0.4 | 0.59 | ||||
| Putaminal DAT | 1.81±0.3 | — | 0.66±0.3 | 0.57±0.2 | — | — | — | |||
| CSF α-synuclein | 1862±799 | 1886±742 | 1860±813 | 1821±838 | 0.99 | 14.9±94 | -16.4±62 | -44.2±107 | 0.68 | |
| CSF Aβ1–42[ | 362±77 | 392±89 | 370±85 | 383±90 | 0.61 | 30.4±9 | 14.4±8.8 | -18.1±13 | 0.18 | |
| CSF t-Tau | 44.0±19 | 45.8±20 | 43.5±16 | 42.4±16 | 0.99 | 1.03±1.1 | -1.21±0.9 | -2.50±1.4 | 0.07 | |
| CSF p-Tau181 | 15.7±8 | 16.1±8 | 14.8±7 | 14.7±7 | 0.62 | -0.67±1.8 | -0.68±1.3 | -0.14±2.2 | 0.95 | |
[1] Dominant side of symptom at onset. L = left side; R = right side, Sym = symmetrical
[2] At baseline MRI, all 122 PD patients were drug naïve. At one year follow-up, 76 PD patients started taking levodopa medication.
[3] Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (Movement Disorder Society revision) part I-IV, total 65 items, each item ranges from 0 (normal) to 4 (severe)
[4] Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (Movement Disorder Society revision) part III, 33 items of motor examination, each item ranges from 0 (normal) to 4 (severe)
[5] Hoehn and Yahr scale, range 0 (best) to 5 (worst). All patients had a score ≤ 2 at baseline per enrollment criterion for PD in the PPMI
[6] Montreal Cognitive Assessment, range from 0 (worst) to 30 (best)
[7] Putaminal dopamine transporter binding ratio (the minimum putaminal side at baseline)
[8] Cerebrospinal fluid alpha-synuclein concentration (ng/ml)
[9] Cerebrospinal fluid beta-amyloid 42 concentration (ng/ml)
[10] Cerebrospinal fluid concentration of total Tau protein (ng/ml)
[11] Cerebrospinal fluid concentration of phosphorylated Tau protein at threonine 181 (ng/ml)
* Follow-up DAT scan data from 6 subjects missing
# Longitudinal data of CSF biomarkers from 50 PD patients and 35 HC subjects available only at the time of the analysis
—indicates not applicable
Significant group differences are bolded
Fig 3Surface rendered brain maps of differences in regional DTI rates between PD patients and control subjects (FDR-corrected P<0.05).
Color scales indicate annual percentage change form baseline, separately for decline in fractional anisotropy (FA), increase in radial diffusivity (rD) and increase in axial diffusivity (aD).
Fig 4Individual trajectories of FA, rD and aD changes in the substantia nigra (A), the thalamus (B), and the midbrain (C) from all subjects. A black line indicates the mean trajectory of each respective group.
Pearson’s correlation results between regional DTI changes and changes in clinical or bio-specimen changes.
| Measure | Brain Region | Hemi-sphere | Pearson’s Correlation | Total UPDRS | UPDRS-III | MoCA total | Putaminal DaT | CSF α-synuclein | CSF Aβ1–42 | CSF t-Tau | CSF p-Tau181 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA | Substantia | Ipsi- | Coefficient | 0.03 | -0.04 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.04 | |
| Nigra | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | -0.05 | -0.08 | 0.01 | 0.17 | -0.08 | 0.18 | -0.05 | |||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |||||
| MidBrain | Ipsi- | Coefficient | -0.05 | -0.12 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.22 | -0.03 | 0.19 | -0.14 | |
| ( | ( | (0.05) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | -0.07 | -0.12 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.14 | -0.08 | 0.17 | -0.21 | ||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Thalamus | Ipsi- | Coefficient | -0.06 | -0.09 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.00 | -0.14 | 0.19 | -0.07 | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | -0.11 | -0.12 | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.06 | -0.16 | 0.18 | -0.21 | ||
| ( | ( | ( | (0.03) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| rD | Substantia | Ipsi- | Coefficient | -0.03 | 0.06 | 0.04 | -0.10 | -0.34 | -0.31 | -0.22 | |
| Nigra | ( | ( | ( | ( | (0.03) | (0.06) | ( | ||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.03 | -0.22 | -0.15 | 0.01 | -0.14 | 0.01 | ||
| ( | ( | ( | (0.04) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| MidBrain | Ipsi- | Coefficient | 0.03 | 0.10 | -0.19 | -0.01 | -0.16 | 0.08 | -0.07 | 0.10 | |
| ( | ( | (0.08) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | 0.08 | 0.11 | -0.17 | -0.05 | -0.15 | 0.22 | -0.08 | 0.22 | ||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Thalamus | Ipsi- | Coefficient | 0.05 | 0.11 | -0.22 | -0.09 | -0.10 | 0.20 | -0.05 | 0.15 | |
| ( | ( | (0.03) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | 0.10 | 0.10 | -0.08 | -0.13 | 0.18 | -0.03 | 0.20 | |||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |||||
| aD | Substantia | Ipsi- | Coefficient | -0.05 | -0.01 | 0.06 | -0.09 | -0.33 | -0.21 | -0.28 | -0.27 |
| Nigra | ( | ( | ( | ( | (0.03) | ( | ( | ( | |||
| Contra- | Coefficient | -0.04 | -0.04 | 0.04 | -0.13 | -0.02 | -0.06 | -0.09 | -0.06 | ||
| ( | ( | (0.66) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| MidBrain | Ipsi- | Coefficient | 0.01 | 0.05 | -0.14 | -0.01 | -0.07 | 0.13 | -0.01 | 0.09 | |
| ( | ( | (0.13) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | 0.03 | 0.02 | -0.18 | -0.04 | -0.09 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 0.21 | ||
| ( | ( | (0.04) | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ||||
| Thalamus | Ipsi- | Coefficient | 0.05 | 0.10 | -0.17 | -0.11 | 0.19 | -0.03 | 0.15 | ||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |||||
| Contra- | Coefficient | 0.08 | 0.08 | -0.05 | -0.11 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 0.15 | |||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( |
Listed are Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value in brackets
a DAT data from 6 subjects were missing and are not included
b Data of CSF biomarker concentration changes were available from a subset of 50 PD patients at the time of the analysis
Bold: Correlations are also significant on the Spearman rank correlation test.
Fig 5Scatter plots of the most prominent correlations: (A), correlation between annual DTI changes in the thalamus and MoCA score changes, (B) correlation between annual DTI changes in the substantia nigra and changes of putaminal DAT binding ratios (the putaminal side with minimum DAT ratio at baseline was selected). (C), correlation between annual DTI changes in the substantia nigra and changes of CSF alpha-synuclein in a subset of 50 PD patients.