Jorge Sepulcre1, Michel J Grothe2, Mert Sabuncu3, Jasmeer Chhatwal3, Aaron P Schultz3, Bernard Hanseeuw3, Georges El Fakhri4, Reisa Sperling5, Keith A Johnson6. 1. Gordon Center for Medical Imaging, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts2Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 2. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Rostock, Germany. 3. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 4. Gordon Center for Medical Imaging, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, Massachusetts4Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts5Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Gordon Center for Medical Imaging, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts4Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts5Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Abnormal accumulation of tau and amyloid-β (Aβ) proteins in the human brain are 2 pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD). Because pathologic processes begin decades before the onset of the clinical manifestations, the study of the cortical distribution of early-stage pathologic alterations is critical in understanding the underpinnings of the disease. Objectives: To identify the in vivo brain spatial distributions of tau and Aβ deposits in a sample of cognitively normal participants in the Harvard Aging Brain Study, determine spatial patterns of pathologic alterations, and provide means for improved individual in vivo staging. Design, Setting, and Participants: Eighty-eight individuals from the general community underwent flortaucipir 18 T807 (18F-T807) and carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound B (11C-PiB) positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging. A voxel-level hierarchical clustering approach was used to obtain the main clustering partitions corresponding to the cortical distribution maps of 18F-T807 and 11C-PiB. Hierarchical relationships between areas of distinctive pathologic deposits were then studied. Using cerebellar gray reference, 18F-T807 data were expressed as standardized uptake value ratio, and 11C-PiB were given as distribution volume ratio. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main in vivo and hierarchically organized tau and Aβ deposits in the elderly brain. Results: Of the 88 study participants, 39 (44%) were men, with a mean (SD) age of 76.2 (6.2) years. The tau and Aβ maps both displayed optimal cortical partitions at 4 clusters. The tau deposits were grouped in the temporal lobe, distributed in heteromodal areas, medial and visual regions, and primary somatomotor cortex; the Aβ deposits were clustered in the heteromodal areas and rather patchy in distributed regions involving the primary cortices, medial structures, and temporal areas. Moreover, tau deposits in the temporal lobe and distributed heteromodal areas were tightly nested. Conclusions and Relevance: Tau and Aβ deposits in the elderly brain generally display well-defined hierarchical cortical relationships as well as overlaps between the principal clusters of both pathologic alterations in the heteromodal association regions. These findings represent systematic, large-scale mechanisms of early AD pathology.
Importance: Abnormal accumulation of tau and amyloid-β (Aβ) proteins in the human brain are 2 pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD). Because pathologic processes begin decades before the onset of the clinical manifestations, the study of the cortical distribution of early-stage pathologic alterations is critical in understanding the underpinnings of the disease. Objectives: To identify the in vivo brain spatial distributions of tau and Aβ deposits in a sample of cognitively normal participants in the Harvard Aging Brain Study, determine spatial patterns of pathologic alterations, and provide means for improved individual in vivo staging. Design, Setting, and Participants: Eighty-eight individuals from the general community underwent flortaucipir 18 T807 (18F-T807) and carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound B (11C-PiB) positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging. A voxel-level hierarchical clustering approach was used to obtain the main clustering partitions corresponding to the cortical distribution maps of 18F-T807 and 11C-PiB. Hierarchical relationships between areas of distinctive pathologic deposits were then studied. Using cerebellar gray reference, 18F-T807 data were expressed as standardized uptake value ratio, and 11C-PiB were given as distribution volume ratio. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main in vivo and hierarchically organized tau and Aβ deposits in the elderly brain. Results: Of the 88 study participants, 39 (44%) were men, with a mean (SD) age of 76.2 (6.2) years. The tau and Aβ maps both displayed optimal cortical partitions at 4 clusters. The tau deposits were grouped in the temporal lobe, distributed in heteromodal areas, medial and visual regions, and primary somatomotor cortex; the Aβ deposits were clustered in the heteromodal areas and rather patchy in distributed regions involving the primary cortices, medial structures, and temporal areas. Moreover, tau deposits in the temporal lobe and distributed heteromodal areas were tightly nested. Conclusions and Relevance: Tau and Aβ deposits in the elderly brain generally display well-defined hierarchical cortical relationships as well as overlaps between the principal clusters of both pathologic alterations in the heteromodal association regions. These findings represent systematic, large-scale mechanisms of early AD pathology.
Authors: Andrei G Vlassenko; Mark A Mintun; Chengjie Xiong; Yvette I Sheline; Alison M Goate; Tammie L S Benzinger; John C Morris Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Brian J Lopresti; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Jessica A Hoge; Scott K Ziolko; Xueling Lu; Carolyn C Meltzer; Kurt Schimmel; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Steven T DeKosky; Julie C Price Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alberto Serrano-Pozo; Matthew P Frosch; Eliezer Masliah; Bradley T Hyman Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 6.915
Authors: Jorge J Palop; Jeannie Chin; Erik D Roberson; Jun Wang; Myo T Thwin; Nga Bien-Ly; Jong Yoo; Kaitlyn O Ho; Gui-Qiu Yu; Anatol Kreitzer; Steven Finkbeiner; Jeffrey L Noebels; Lennart Mucke Journal: Neuron Date: 2007-09-06 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Aaron Schultz; Rebecca A Betensky; J Alex Becker; Jorge Sepulcre; Dorene Rentz; Elizabeth Mormino; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Rebecca Amariglio; Kate Papp; Gad Marshall; Mark Albers; Samantha Mauro; Lesley Pepin; Jonathan Alverio; Kelly Judge; Marlie Philiossaint; Timothy Shoup; Daniel Yokell; Bradford Dickerson; Teresa Gomez-Isla; Bradley Hyman; Neil Vasdev; Reisa Sperling Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Chester A Mathis; Yanming Wang; Daniel P Holt; Guo-Feng Huang; Manik L Debnath; William E Klunk Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: J Alex Becker; Trey Hedden; Jeremy Carmasin; Jacqueline Maye; Dorene M Rentz; Deepti Putcha; Bruce Fischl; Douglas N Greve; Gad A Marshall; Stephen Salloway; Donald Marks; Randy L Buckner; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: David S Knopman; Helene Amieva; Ronald C Petersen; Gäel Chételat; David M Holtzman; Bradley T Hyman; Ralph A Nixon; David T Jones Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Jean-Pierre Roussarie; Vicky Yao; Patricia Rodriguez-Rodriguez; Rose Oughtred; Jennifer Rust; Zakary Plautz; Shirin Kasturia; Christian Albornoz; Wei Wang; Eric F Schmidt; Ruth Dannenfelser; Alicja Tadych; Lars Brichta; Alona Barnea-Cramer; Nathaniel Heintz; Patrick R Hof; Myriam Heiman; Kara Dolinski; Marc Flajolet; Olga G Troyanskaya; Paul Greengard Journal: Neuron Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Nicolai Franzmeier; Anna Rubinski; Julia Neitzel; Yeshin Kim; Alexander Damm; Duk L Na; Hee Jin Kim; Chul Hyoung Lyoo; Hana Cho; Sofia Finsterwalder; Marco Duering; Sang Won Seo; Michael Ewers Journal: Brain Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Vladimir Hachinski; Karl Einhäupl; Detlev Ganten; Suvarna Alladi; Carol Brayne; Blossom C M Stephan; Melanie D Sweeney; Berislav Zlokovic; Yasser Iturria-Medina; Costantino Iadecola; Nozomi Nishimura; Chris B Schaffer; Shawn N Whitehead; Sandra E Black; Leif Østergaard; Joanna Wardlaw; Steven Greenberg; Leif Friberg; Bo Norrving; Brian Rowe; Yves Joanette; Werner Hacke; Lewis Kuller; Martin Dichgans; Matthias Endres; Zaven S Khachaturian Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Jorge Sepulcre; Michel J Grothe; Federico d'Oleire Uquillas; Laura Ortiz-Terán; Ibai Diez; Hyun-Sik Yang; Heidi I L Jacobs; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Quanzheng Li; Georges El-Fakhri; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: Nat Med Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Jacob W Vogel; Niklas Mattsson; Yasser Iturria-Medina; Olof T Strandberg; Michael Schöll; Christian Dansereau; Sylvia Villeneuve; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Pierre Bellec; Alan C Evans; Oskar Hansson; Rik Ossenkoppele Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 5.038