Ying Wang1, Zhihong Shi2, Nan Zhang3, Li Cai1, Yansheng Li1, Hailei Yang1, Shaobo Yao1, Xiling Xing1, Yong Ji2, Shuo Gao4. 1. Department of PET-CT Diagnostic, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heing District, Tianjin, 300052, China. 2. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cerebrovascular and Neurodegenerative Diseases, Tianjin Huanhu Hospital, Tianjin, China. 3. Department of Neurology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China. 4. Department of PET-CT Diagnostic, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, 154 Anshan Road, Heing District, Tianjin, 300052, China. dr_shuogao@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the most vulnerable network among typical and three variants of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to link amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition and downstream network dysfunction. PROCEDURES: In this study, 38 typical AD, 11 frontal variants, 8 logopenic variants, 6 posterior variants, and 20 normal controls were enrolled. 2-(4'-[11C] Methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxybenzothiazole ([11C]PIB) and 2-deoxy-2-[18]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging were performed. Voxel-wise statistical analysis was used for [18F]FDG analysis, whereas two-sample t test was performed between each AD group and control group. Moreover, the goodness of fit (GOF) of t-maps with brain functional network templates was assessed, and the most vulnerable network in each phenotypic of AD was chosen as volume of interests (VOIs). [11C]PIB binding potential (BPND) of VOIs were generated by using PMOD software. In addition, statistical analysis of BPND among four types of AD in each specific network was calculated by SPSS software. RESULTS: The hypometabolism patterns indicated that in typical and frontal variants of AD, the most vulnerable network was the left executive control network (GOF score = 4.3, 5.0). For the logopenic variant, the highest GOF score (1.9) belonged to the auditory network. For the posterior variant, the higher visual network was the most vulnerable (GOF score = 6.0). The [11C]PIB BPND showed that there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) among AD groups within the specific networks. CONCLUSION: The phenotypic diversity of AD correlates with specific functional network failure; however, Aβ plaques do not associate with specific network vulnerability.
PURPOSE: To identify the most vulnerable network among typical and three variants of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to link amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition and downstream network dysfunction. PROCEDURES: In this study, 38 typical AD, 11 frontal variants, 8 logopenic variants, 6 posterior variants, and 20 normal controls were enrolled. 2-(4'-[11C] Methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxybenzothiazole ([11C]PIB) and 2-deoxy-2-[18]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging were performed. Voxel-wise statistical analysis was used for [18F]FDG analysis, whereas two-sample t test was performed between each AD group and control group. Moreover, the goodness of fit (GOF) of t-maps with brain functional network templates was assessed, and the most vulnerable network in each phenotypic of AD was chosen as volume of interests (VOIs). [11C]PIB binding potential (BPND) of VOIs were generated by using PMOD software. In addition, statistical analysis of BPND among four types of AD in each specific network was calculated by SPSS software. RESULTS: The hypometabolism patterns indicated that in typical and frontal variants of AD, the most vulnerable network was the left executive control network (GOF score = 4.3, 5.0). For the logopenic variant, the highest GOF score (1.9) belonged to the auditory network. For the posterior variant, the higher visual network was the most vulnerable (GOF score = 6.0). The [11C]PIB BPND showed that there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) among AD groups within the specific networks. CONCLUSION: The phenotypic diversity of AD correlates with specific functional network failure; however, Aβ plaques do not associate with specific network vulnerability.
Authors: Randy L Buckner; Jorge Sepulcre; Tanveer Talukdar; Fenna M Krienen; Hesheng Liu; Trey Hedden; Jessica R Andrews-Hanna; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Michael W Weiner; Paul S Aisen; Leslie M Shaw; Prashanthi Vemuri; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Timothy G Lesnick; Vernon S Pankratz; Michael C Donohue; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Claudia Jacova; Harald Hampel; José Luis Molinuevo; Kaj Blennow; Steven T DeKosky; Serge Gauthier; Dennis Selkoe; Randall Bateman; Stefano Cappa; Sebastian Crutch; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Giovanni B Frisoni; Nick C Fox; Douglas Galasko; Marie-Odile Habert; Gregory A Jicha; Agneta Nordberg; Florence Pasquier; Gil Rabinovici; Philippe Robert; Christopher Rowe; Stephen Salloway; Marie Sarazin; Stéphane Epelbaum; Leonardo C de Souza; Bruno Vellas; Pieter J Visser; Lon Schneider; Yaakov Stern; Philip Scheltens; Jeffrey L Cummings Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Juan Zhou; Michael D Greicius; Efstathios D Gennatas; Matthew E Growdon; Jung Y Jang; Gil D Rabinovici; Joel H Kramer; Michael Weiner; Bruce L Miller; William W Seeley Journal: Brain Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: M H Rosenbloom; A Alkalay; N Agarwal; S L Baker; J P O'Neil; M Janabi; I V Yen; M Growdon; J Jang; C Madison; E C Mormino; H J Rosen; M L Gorno-Tempini; M W Weiner; B L Miller; W J Jagust; G D Rabinovici Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ellen H Singleton; Yolande A L Pijnenburg; Carole H Sudre; Colin Groot; Elena Kochova; Frederik Barkhof; Renaud La Joie; Howard J Rosen; William W Seeley; Bruce Miller; M Jorge Cardoso; Janne Papma; Philip Scheltens; Gil D Rabinovici; Rik Ossenkoppele Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 6.982