Michel J Grothe1, Sylvia Villeneuve2, Martin Dyrba2, David Bartrés-Faz2, Miranka Wirth2. 1. From the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (M.J.G., M.D.), Rostock, Germany; Douglas Mental Health University Institute (S.V.), Research Centre, Verdun; Department of Psychiatry (S.V.), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Medicine (D.B.-F.), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Spain; and NeuroCure Clinical Research Center (M.W.) and Department of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. michel.grothe@dzne.de. 2. From the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (M.J.G., M.D.), Rostock, Germany; Douglas Mental Health University Institute (S.V.), Research Centre, Verdun; Department of Psychiatry (S.V.), McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Medicine (D.B.-F.), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Spain; and NeuroCure Clinical Research Center (M.W.) and Department of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively assess neurobiological effects of the protective APOE2 allele in the aged brain using a cross-sectional multimodal neuroimaging approach. METHODS: Multimodal neuroimaging data were obtained from a total of 572 older individuals without dementia (cognitively normal and mild cognitive impairment) enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and included assessments of regional amyloid load with AV45-PET, glucose metabolism with fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, and gray matter volume with structural MRI. Imaging indexes of APOE2 carriers were contrasted to risk-neutral APOE3 homozygotes, and analyses were controlled for age, sex, education, and clinical diagnosis. Additional models examined genotype-specific effects of age on the imaging markers. RESULTS: In region-of-interest-based analyses, APOE2 carriers had significantly less precuneal amyloid pathology and did not show the typical age-related increase in amyloid load, although the age × genotype interaction was only trend-level significant. In contrast, parietal metabolism and hippocampal volume did not differ between APOE2 and APOE3 genotypes, and both groups showed comparable negative effects of age on these markers. The amyloid specificity of APOE2-related brain changes was corroborated in 2 complementary analyses: spatially unbiased voxel-wise analyses showing widespread reductions in amyloid deposition but no differences in gray matter volume or metabolism and an analysis of CSF-based biomarkers showing a significant effect on amyloid but not on tau pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the range of Alzheimer disease biomarkers considered in the present study, the APOE2 allele appears to have a relatively selective effect on reduced accumulation of amyloid pathology in the aged brain.
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively assess neurobiological effects of the protective APOE2 allele in the aged brain using a cross-sectional multimodal neuroimaging approach. METHODS: Multimodal neuroimaging data were obtained from a total of 572 older individuals without dementia (cognitively normal and mild cognitive impairment) enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and included assessments of regional amyloid load with AV45-PET, glucose metabolism with fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, and gray matter volume with structural MRI. Imaging indexes of APOE2 carriers were contrasted to risk-neutral APOE3 homozygotes, and analyses were controlled for age, sex, education, and clinical diagnosis. Additional models examined genotype-specific effects of age on the imaging markers. RESULTS: In region-of-interest-based analyses, APOE2 carriers had significantly less precuneal amyloid pathology and did not show the typical age-related increase in amyloid load, although the age × genotype interaction was only trend-level significant. In contrast, parietal metabolism and hippocampal volume did not differ between APOE2 and APOE3 genotypes, and both groups showed comparable negative effects of age on these markers. The amyloid specificity of APOE2-related brain changes was corroborated in 2 complementary analyses: spatially unbiased voxel-wise analyses showing widespread reductions in amyloid deposition but no differences in gray matter volume or metabolism and an analysis of CSF-based biomarkers showing a significant effect on amyloid but not on tau pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the range of Alzheimer disease biomarkers considered in the present study, the APOE2 allele appears to have a relatively selective effect on reduced accumulation of amyloid pathology in the aged brain.
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Henrik Zetterberg; Argonde C van Harten; Lidia Glodzik; Pablo Martinez-Lage; Luisella Bocchio-Chiavetto; Lorena Rami; Oskar Hansson; Reisa Sperling; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Ricardo S Osorio; Hugo Vanderstichele; Manu Vandijck; Harald Hampel; Stefan Teipl; Abhay Moghekar; Marilyn Albert; William T Hu; Jose A Monge Argilés; Ana Gorostidi; Charlotte E Teunissen; Peter P De Deyn; Bradley T Hyman; Jose L Molinuevo; Giovanni B Frisoni; Gurutz Linazasoro; Mony J de Leon; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Kaj Blennow; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Brain Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Kerryn E Pike; Gaël Chételat; Kathryn A Ellis; Rachel S Mulligan; Pierrick Bourgeat; Uwe Ackermann; Gareth Jones; Cassandra Szoeke; Olivier Salvado; Ralph Martins; Graeme O'Keefe; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk; David Ames; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Hugo Vanderstichele; Malgorzata Knapik-Czajka; Christopher M Clark; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Kaj Blennow; Holly Soares; Adam Simon; Piotr Lewczuk; Robert Dean; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: L A Farrer; L A Cupples; J L Haines; B Hyman; W A Kukull; R Mayeux; R H Myers; M A Pericak-Vance; N Risch; C M van Duijn Journal: JAMA Date: 1997 Oct 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew B Wolf; Jon Valla; Guojun Bu; Jungsu Kim; Mary Jo LaDu; Eric M Reiman; Richard J Caselli Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Rosalía Fernández-Calle; Sabine C Konings; Javier Frontiñán-Rubio; Juan García-Revilla; Lluís Camprubí-Ferrer; Martina Svensson; Isak Martinson; Antonio Boza-Serrano; José Luís Venero; Henrietta M Nielsen; Gunnar K Gouras; Tomas Deierborg Journal: Mol Neurodegener Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 18.879
Authors: Beth E Snitz; Yuefang Chang; Dana L Tudorascu; Oscar L Lopez; Brian J Lopresti; Steven T DeKosky; Michelle C Carlson; Ann D Cohen; M Ilyas Kamboh; Howard J Aizenstein; William E Klunk; Lewis H Kuller Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Talia M Nir; Alyssa H Zhu; Iyad Ba Gari; Daniel Dixon; Tasfiya Islam; Julio E Villalon-Reina; Sarah E Medland; Paul M Thompson; Neda Jahanshad Journal: Pac Symp Biocomput Date: 2022
Authors: Joana B Pereira; Theresa M Harrison; Renaud La Joie; Suzanne L Baker; William J Jagust Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: V Velickaite; V Giedraitis; K Ström; I Alafuzoff; H Zetterberg; L Lannfelt; L Kilander; E-M Larsson; M Ingelsson Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 3.921