| Literature DB >> 28197358 |
Annamaria Zaia1, Pierluigi Maponi2, Giuseppina Di Stefano3, Tiziana Casoli4.
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents one major health concern for our growing elderly population. It accounts for increasing impairment of cognitive capacity followed by loss of executive function in late stage. AD pathogenesis is multifaceted and difficult to pinpoint, and understanding AD etiology will be critical to effectively diagnose and treat the disease. An interesting hypothesis concerning AD development postulates a cause-effect relationship between accumulation of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations and neurodegenerative changes associated with this pathology. Here we propose a computerized method for an easy and fast mtDNA mutations-based characterization of AD. The method has been built taking into account the complexity of living being and fractal properties of many anatomic and physiologic structures, including mtDNA. Dealing with mtDNA mutations as gaps in the nucleotide sequence, fractal lacunarity appears a suitable tool to differentiate between aging and AD. Therefore, Chaos Game Representation method has been used to display DNA fractal properties after adapting the algorithm to visualize also heteroplasmic mutations. Parameter β from our fractal lacunarity method, based on hyperbola model function, has been measured to quantitatively characterize AD on the basis of mtDNA mutations. Results from this pilot study to develop the method show that fractal lacunarity parameter β of mtDNA is statistically different in AD patients when compared to age-matched controls. Fractal lacunarity analysis represents a useful tool to analyze mtDNA mutations. Lacunarity parameter β is able to characterize individual mutation profile of mitochondrial genome and appears a promising index to discriminate between AD and aging.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Alzheimer’s disease; Biocomplexity; Chaos Game Representation; Fractal lacunarity; mtDNA
Year: 2017 PMID: 28197358 PMCID: PMC5291006 DOI: 10.14336/AD.2016.0629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging Dis ISSN: 2152-5250 Impact factor: 6.745
Characteristics of subjects included in the study
| AD patients | Controls | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number (M/F) | 2/12 | 1/13 | |
| Age | 75.4 ± 5.1 | 73.1 ± 5.1 | 0.117 |
| MMSE | 17.3 ± 3.4 | 28.2 ± 0.8 | <0.001 |
| ADL | 5.2 ± 1.3 | 6.0 ± 0.0 | 0.022 |
| IADL | 2.0 ± 1.4 | 8.0 ± 0.0 | <0.001 |
Values are expressed as mean ± SD;
p Values have been calculated by one-tail t-test;
AD: Alzheimer’s Disease; MMSE: Mini Mental State Examination; ADL:
Activities of Daily Living; IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
Figure 1.Chaos Game Representation method. CGR organization for L=1,2,3 in the case of mtDNA four-symbol alphabet sequence.
Figure 2.Chaos Game Representation of human mtDNA. Whole revised Cambridge Reference Sequence processed by CGR method generates matrices 2x2. Matrices for L=1 to L=6 are reported (a). CGR representation of human mtDNA resembles self-similarity of the triangle of Sierpinski, an ideal fractal built through repeated iterations starting from a square (b).
Figure 3.Schematic representation of fractal lacunarity analysis. (Top left) rCRS mtDNA image generated by CGR matrix for L=5 is a 32x32 square. The plot (bottom) represents the result of GBA application (dotted line), for b=3, as fitted by hyperbola function (solid line) used to calculate the triplet of parameters a, b, γ. rCRS: revised Cambridge Reference Sequence; Chaos Game Representation; GBA: Gliding Box Algorithm.
Figure 4.Examples of CGR images of mtDNA sequences from different subjects. Matrices for L=5 (top) and L=6 (bottom) generated from mtDNA of rCRS (left), AD patient (middle), and Control (Ctr, right). Lacunarity parameter b value for each representation is reported. CGR: Chaos Game Representation; rCRS: revised Cambridge Reference Sequence; AD: Alzheimer’s Disease.
Figure 5.Correlation of lacunarity parameter . MMSE-Mini Mental State Examination (left); ADL-Activities of Daily Living (middle); IADL-Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (right). Triangles and circles represent AD patients and age-matched controls respectively.
Different approaches to AD diagnosis used in clinical practice
| Target | Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive and neuropsychological assessment | Provides a detailed picture of cognitive status. Thinking skills that are explored include memory, language, visual-spatial perception, attention, motor function, and executive function (e. g. MMSE, NPI, ADL, IADL) | Identifies very early subtle cognitive changes and which areas of mental functioning are affected. It can help distinguish AD from other forms of dementia. The cost is low and the tests are not invasive. | An abnormal result can have many explanations other than AD. It can miss cognitive impairment in those who are highly educated. It can be tiring and stressful for patients being tested. |
| Brain imaging | CT scans and MRI examine structural changes of the brain. PET scans can show metabolic changes and amyloid deposition. | Allows finding possible other causes of dementia symptoms (brain trauma, tumor, or stroke). PET scans can help distinguish AD from frontotemporal dementia. | Brain imaging may require the use of intravenous "tracing" agents, that can cause side effects. MRI scanners can induce claustrophobia and may not be compatible with pacemakers or other devices. The cost is notably high. |
| Spinal tests | The amounts of three AD biomarkers, amyloid-β 42, total tau, phosphorylated tau, are determined in CSF through a lumbar spine puncture. | CSF biomarkers can identify patients without clinical or preclinical signs of AD. A low level of amyloid-β 42 in patients with mild cognitive impairment seems to predict with 80-90 % accuracy who will not develop AD. | It is an invasive test to be performed by an expert high qualified specialist. Risk exists for infection, ble eding, and pain |
MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; NPI: Neuropsychiatric Inventory; ADL: Activities Daily Living; IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; AD: Alzheimer Disease; CT: Computed Tomography; MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; PET: Positron Emission Tomography; CSF: Cerebrospinal Fluid
Characteristics of mtDNA sequences processed by the proposed method
| Number | rCRS | AD patients | Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects | 14 | 14 | ||
| Adenosine | 5117 | 5178.8 ± 9.4 | 5174.9 ± 7.4 | 0.115 |
| Cytosine | 5175 | 4937.3 ± 28.9 | 4948.6 ± 11.9 | 0.095 |
| Guanine | 2163 | 2266.1 ± 15.0 | 2264.3 ± 13.6 | 0.371 |
| Thymine | 4089 | 4161.9 ± 12.4 | 4156.3 ± 15.0 | 0.076 |
| Total mutations | 18 ± 10 | 23 ± 12 | 0.094 | |
| Homoplasmic | 14 ± 8 | 18 ± 9 | 0.090 | |
| Heteroplasmic | 3 ± 3 | 5 ± 4 | 0.119 |
Values are expressed as mean ± SD;
p Values have been calculated by one-tail t-test to compare differences between AD and Controls groups;
rCRS: revised Cambridge Reference Sequence; AD: Alzheimer’s Disease