| Literature DB >> 28574812 |
Xiao Luo1, Yerfan Jiaerken1, Xinfeng Yu1, Peiyu Huang1, Tiantian Qiu1, Yunlu Jia2, Kaicheng Li1, Xiaojun Xu1, Zhujing Shen1, Xiaojun Guan1, Jiong Zhou3, Minming Zhang1, For The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Adni.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It remains unclear if and how the interactions between APOE genotypes and cerebral small-vessel diseases (CSVD) lead to cognitive decline in the long term. Based on ADNI cohort, this longitudinal study aimed to clarify the potential relationship among APOE genotype, CSVD and cognition by integrating multi-level data.Entities:
Keywords: apolipoprotein E (APOE); cerebral small-vascular disease (CSVD); cognition; dilated perivascular space (dPVS); white matter hyperintensities (WMH)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28574812 PMCID: PMC5546495 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Comparison among three subgroups of demographic, behavior and CSF data
| ε2 carriers | ε4 carriers | Controls | F/χ2 | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 20 | 41 | 74 | ||
| Demographic characteristics | |||||
| Age, y, mean (SD) | 73.57±5.21 | 73.33±7.11 | 74.26±6.12 | 0.31 | 0.73 |
| Female, n(%) | 10 (50.0%) | 20 (48.8%) | 34 (45.9%) | 0.15 | 0.93 |
| Education, y, mean (SD) | 16.85±2.50 | 16.20±2.40 | 16.80±2.41 | 0.92 | 0.40 |
| Vascular risk factors, n(%) | |||||
| Hypertension | 11 (55.0%) | 19 (46.3%) | 36 (48.6%) | 0.41 | 0.82 |
| Smoking history | 14 (70.0%) | 30 (73.2%) | 59 (79.7%) | 1.14 | 0.57 |
| Diabetes | 19 (95.0%) | 39 (95.1%) | 67 (90.5%) | 1.01 | 0.61 |
| Hachinski Ischemic Score | 0.75±0.91 | 0.46±0.50 | 0.55±0.64 | 1.30 | 0.28 |
| CSF biomarker | |||||
| Amyloid1–42 (ng/L) | 223.57±50.34 | 171.33±55.50 | 204.68±47.47 | 7.08 | <0.001 |
| T-tau (ng/L) | 55.64±22.13 | 71.25±31.16 | 71.25±40.16 | 1.56 | 0.22 |
| P-tau181 (ng/L) | 34.16±16.05 | 36.71±15.93 | 36.22±26.10 | 0.07 | 0.93 |
| Cognitive scores | |||||
| MMSE_baseline | 28.70±1.38 | 28.90±1.28 | 29.31±1.02 | 3.00 | 0.05 |
| MMSE_1 year follow-up | 29.20±1.01 | 28.73±1.55 | 28.80±1.25 | 0.92 | 0.40 |
| MMSE_2 year follow-up | 29.05±1.05 | 28.63±1.85 | 28.95±1.32 | 0.77 | 0.47 |
MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; *represent P < 0.05
It should be noted that mean level of Aβ1-42, t-tau and p-tau181 levels in Table 1 only represent the subjects who had CSF sample.
Figure 1Progression of WMH volume during 2 years follow-up
Only the progression of frontal WMH volume and progression of total WMH volume had significant between-groups differences (p<0.05, Unit: ml).
Figure 2Scatter plot diagram of correlation between progression of total WMH (unit: ml) and neuropathological data (measured by CSF and PiB PET)
Our results showed that both Aβ in CSF (R=-0.0224, P=0.011) and PiB-PET assessed Aβ deposition in frontal lobe (R=-0.185, P=0.032) were significantly correlated with progression of WMH volume.
Tests of between-subjects effects dependent variable: MMSE score progression
| Source | Type III sum of squares | Significant |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 6.37 | 0.099 |
| Sex | 0.017 | 0.932 |
| APOE ε2 gene carrying | 0.162 | 0.791 |
| APOE ε4 gene carrying | 0.539 | 0.63 |
| Frontal lobe WMH volume | 0.085 | 0.848 |
| Number of lacunes | 0.56 | 0.623 |
| dPVS grade in centrum ovale | 1.901 | 0.366 |
| dPVS in basal ganglia | 0.406 | 0.676 |
| HBP score | 0.089 | 0.844 |
| APOE ε2 × dPVS in basal ganglia | 0.271 | 0.732 |
| APOE ε4 × dPVS in basal ganglia | 0.011 | 0.945 |
| APOE ε2 × dPVS in centrum ovale | 1.186 | 0.475 |
| APOE ε4 × dPVS in centrum ovale | 0.002 | 0.98 |
| APOE ε2 × Frontal lobe WMH volume | 0.605 | 0.609 |
| APOE ε4 × Frontal lobe WMH volume | 9.011 | 0.050* |
| APOE ε2 × lacune | 9.135 | 0.049* |
| APOE ε4 × lacune | 0.203 | 0.844 |
P<0.05 was considered statistical significant, the factors influencing MMSE progression.
Figure 3Severity scores of dPVS in the BG
Specifically, dPVS severity is rated 1 when there were <5 dPVS (A), rated 2 when there were 5~10 dPVS (B), rated 3 when there were >10 dPVS but the number is still countable (C), and rated 4 when the number is uncountable (D).
Figure 4Severity scores of dPVS in the WM
Specifically, dPVS severity is rated 1 when there were <10 dPVS in total (A), rated 2 when there were >10 PVS in total but no more than 10 dPVS in a single section (B), rated 3 when there were 10~20 dPVS in the section containing the greatest number of dPVS (C), and rated 4 when there were >20 dPVS in any single section (D).