Julia Neitzel1, Nicolai Franzmeier1, Anna Rubinski1, Michael Ewers2. 1. From the Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität LMU, Munich, Germany. 2. From the Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research, Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität LMU, Munich, Germany. michael.ewers@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether higher global left frontal cortex (gLFC) connectivity, a putative neural substrate of cognitive reserve, attenuates the effect of entorhinal tau PET levels on episodic memory in older adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional 18F-AV-1451 PET (to assess tau pathology), 18F-AV-45 or 18F-BAY94-9172 PET (to assess β-amyloid [Aβ]), and resting-state fMRI were obtained in 125 elderly participants from the Alzheimer's Neuroimaging Initiative, including 82 cognitively normal participants (amyloid PET-positive [Aβ+], n = 27) and 43 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (Aβ+ = 15). Resting-state fMRI gLFC connectivity was computed for each participant as the average functional connectivity between the left frontal cortex (LFC) (seed) and each remaining voxel in the gray matter. As a measure of tau pathology, we assessed the mean tau PET uptake in the entorhinal cortex. In linear mixed-effects regression analysis, we tested the interaction term gLFC connectivity × entorhinal tau PET on delayed free recall performance. In addition, we assessed whether higher connectivity of the whole frontoparietal control network (FPCN), of which the LFC is a major hub, is associated with reserve. RESULTS: Higher entorhinal tau PET was strongly associated with poorer delayed free recall performance (β/SE = -0.49/0.07, p < 0.001). A significant gLFC connectivity × entorhinal tau PET interaction was found (β/SE = 0.19/0.06, p = 0.003), such that at higher levels of gLFC connectivity, the decrease in memory score per unit of entorhinal tau PET was attenuated. The FPCN connectivity × tau interaction was also significant (β/SE = 0.10/0.04, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Both gLFC and FPCN connectivity are associated with higher resilience against the adverse effect of early-stage entorhinal tau pathology on memory performance.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether higher global left frontal cortex (gLFC) connectivity, a putative neural substrate of cognitive reserve, attenuates the effect of entorhinal tau PET levels on episodic memory in older adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional 18F-AV-1451 PET (to assess tau pathology), 18F-AV-45 or 18F-BAY94-9172 PET (to assess β-amyloid [Aβ]), and resting-state fMRI were obtained in 125 elderly participants from the Alzheimer's Neuroimaging Initiative, including 82 cognitively normal participants (amyloid PET-positive [Aβ+], n = 27) and 43 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (Aβ+ = 15). Resting-state fMRI gLFC connectivity was computed for each participant as the average functional connectivity between the left frontal cortex (LFC) (seed) and each remaining voxel in the gray matter. As a measure of tau pathology, we assessed the mean tau PET uptake in the entorhinal cortex. In linear mixed-effects regression analysis, we tested the interaction term gLFC connectivity × entorhinal tau PET on delayed free recall performance. In addition, we assessed whether higher connectivity of the whole frontoparietal control network (FPCN), of which the LFC is a major hub, is associated with reserve. RESULTS: Higher entorhinal tau PET was strongly associated with poorer delayed free recall performance (β/SE = -0.49/0.07, p < 0.001). A significant gLFC connectivity × entorhinal tau PET interaction was found (β/SE = 0.19/0.06, p = 0.003), such that at higher levels of gLFC connectivity, the decrease in memory score per unit of entorhinal tau PET was attenuated. The FPCN connectivity × tau interaction was also significant (β/SE = 0.10/0.04, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Both gLFC and FPCN connectivity are associated with higher resilience against the adverse effect of early-stage entorhinal tau pathology on memory performance.
Authors: Rahul S Desikan; Florent Ségonne; Bruce Fischl; Brian T Quinn; Bradford C Dickerson; Deborah Blacker; Randy L Buckner; Anders M Dale; R Paul Maguire; Bradley T Hyman; Marilyn S Albert; Ronald J Killiany Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Chenjie Xia; Sara J Makaretz; Christina Caso; Scott McGinnis; Stephen N Gomperts; Jorge Sepulcre; Teresa Gomez-Isla; Bradley T Hyman; Aaron Schultz; Neil Vasdev; Keith A Johnson; Bradford C Dickerson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Dorene M Rentz; Elizabeth C Mormino; Kathryn V Papp; Rebecca A Betensky; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Alexandre Bejanin; Daniel R Schonhaut; Renaud La Joie; Joel H Kramer; Suzanne L Baker; Natasha Sosa; Nagehan Ayakta; Averill Cantwell; Mustafa Janabi; Mariella Lauriola; James P O'Neil; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Zachary A Miller; Howard J Rosen; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Brain Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Anne Maass; Samuel N Lockhart; Theresa M Harrison; Rachel K Bell; Taylor Mellinger; Kaitlin Swinnerton; Suzanne L Baker; Gil D Rabinovici; William J Jagust Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Marta Marquié; Marc D Normandin; Charles R Vanderburg; Isabel M Costantino; Elizabeth A Bien; Lisa G Rycyna; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Milos D Ikonomovic; Manik L Debnath; Neil Vasdev; Bradford C Dickerson; Stephen N Gomperts; John H Growdon; Keith A Johnson; Matthew P Frosch; Bradley T Hyman; Teresa Gómez-Isla Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Dallas P Veitch; Michael W Weiner; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Charles DeCarli; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Susan M Landau; John C Morris; Ozioma Okonkwo; Richard J Perrin; Ronald C Petersen; Monica Rivera-Mindt; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie M Shaw; Arthur W Toga; Duygu Tosun; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Gérard N Bischof; Michael Ewers; Nicolai Franzmeier; Michel J Grothe; Merle Hoenig; Ece Kocagoncu; Julia Neitzel; James B Rowe; Antonio Strafella; Alexander Drzezga; Thilo van Eimeren Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ruben Perellón-Alfonso; María Redondo-Camós; Kilian Abellaneda-Pérez; Gabriele Cattaneo; Selma Delgado-Gallén; Goretti España-Irla; Javier Solana Sánchez; José María Tormos; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; David Bartrés-Faz Journal: Res Sq Date: 2021-12-13
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Chul Hyoung Lyoo; Jonas Jester-Broms; Carole H Sudre; Hanna Cho; Young Hoon Ryu; Jae Yong Choi; Ruben Smith; Olof Strandberg; Sebastian Palmqvist; Joel Kramer; Adam L Boxer; Maria L Gorno-Tempini; Bruce L Miller; Renaud La Joie; Gil D Rabinovici; Oskar Hansson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Gill Livingston; Jonathan Huntley; Andrew Sommerlad; David Ames; Clive Ballard; Sube Banerjee; Carol Brayne; Alistair Burns; Jiska Cohen-Mansfield; Claudia Cooper; Sergi G Costafreda; Amit Dias; Nick Fox; Laura N Gitlin; Robert Howard; Helen C Kales; Mika Kivimäki; Eric B Larson; Adesola Ogunniyi; Vasiliki Orgeta; Karen Ritchie; Kenneth Rockwood; Elizabeth L Sampson; Quincy Samus; Lon S Schneider; Geir Selbæk; Linda Teri; Naaheed Mukadam Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 79.321