| Literature DB >> 31319510 |
Nobutaka Masuoka1, Chitose Yoshimine1, Marie Hori1, Mieko Tanaka2, Takashi Asada3,4, Keiichi Abe5, Tatsuhiro Hisatsune6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral supplementation of anserine/carnosine helps preserve cognitive functions in healthy older adults. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a transition between cognitive-normal and dementia. Therefore, it needs to investigate whether anserine/carnosine supplementation (ACS) has effects on subjects with MCI.Entities:
Keywords: APOE4; Alzheimer’s disease; anserine and carnosine; cognitive functions; mild cognitive impairment (MCI); randomized controlled trial (RCT)
Year: 2019 PMID: 31319510 PMCID: PMC6683059 DOI: 10.3390/nu11071626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flow diagram showing the number of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants during the study. Baseline test: At the beginning of the test. Follow-up test: Twelve weeks after beginning.
Subject characteristics a.
| Active Group | Placebo Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 72.9 ± 8.8 b | 73.6 ± 6.1 | 0.75 c |
| Gender (M/F) | 12/13 | 12/13 | |
| BMI | 22.2 ± 2.8 | 21.5 ± 2.6 | 0.46 c |
| Years of education | 13.9 ± 2.5 | 14.1 ± 2.8 | 0.83 c |
| APOE4 positive/negative | 8/17 | 12/13 | 0.25 d |
a Data are shown for 50 subjects who completed the trial and follow-up tests. b Mean ± Standard Deviation. c p value was determined by the student’s t-test. d p value was by the chi-square test.
Neuropsychological test scores for all subjects a.
| Startup | Follow-Up | Treatment × Time Interaction b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | Placebo | Active | Placebo | Active | Placebo | ||
| MMSE | 27.5 ± 2.2 | 27.0 ± 2.1 | 27.1 ± 2.5 | 26.0 ± 3.4 | −0.4 ± 1.6 | −1.0 ± 1.8 | 0.252 |
| gloCDR | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.38 ± 0.2 | 0.48 ± 0.2 | −0.12 ± 0.22 | −0.02 ± 0.18 | 0.0231 |
| CDRsob | 0.82 ± 0.45 | 1.04 ± 0.53 | 0.80 ± 0.5 | 1.12 ± 0.77 | −0.02 ± 0.51 | 0.12 ± 0.79 | 0.583 |
| WMS-1 | 7.8 ± 4.4 | 7.0 ± 4.5 | 9.1 ± 4.4 | 8.2 ± 5.7 | 1.2 ± 2.8 | 1.2 ± 3.1 | 0.591 |
| WMS-2 | 5.3 ± 4.4 | 5.6 ± 4.6 | 6.7 ± 5.2 | 6.4 ± 6.1 | 1.4 ± 3.0 | 0.7 ± 3.0 | 0.975 |
| ADAS | 12.3 ± 7.4 | 15.5 ± 7.6 | 13.0 ± 8.5 | 15.4 ± 8.6 | 0.8 ± 4.4 | −0.2 ± 4.7 | 0.320 |
| GDS | 2.5 ± 1.9 | 2.5 ± 2.4 | 2.6 ± 2.9 | 2.6 ± 2.1 | 0.1 ± 2.7 | 0.1 ± 2.0 | 0.943 |
a Data are shown in mean ± Standard Deviation. b The change between start-up and follow-up.
Figure 2The comparison of the global (glo)CDR score improvement between the placebo-administered subjects and the anserine/carnosine supplementation (ACS)-administered subjects for the total or APOE4 negative/positive participants. A bar shows the average of the data and ± SEM. * represents p < 0.05 as described in Table 2 and Table 3.
Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and psychological test scores for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE4) (+) subjects a.
| Startup | Follow-Up | Treatment × Time Interaction b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | Placebo | Active | Placebo | Active | Placebo | ||
| MMSE | 27.1 ± 2.4 | 26.7 ± 2.3 | 26.9 ± 2.3 | 25.1 ± 3.6 | −0.25 ± 1.4 | −1.6 ± 1.5 | 0.0253 |
| gloCDR | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.25 ± 0.27 | 0.50 ± 0.21 | −0.25 ± 0.27 | 0 ± 0.21 | 0.0261 |
| CDRsob | 0.69 ± 0.37 | 1.25 ± 0.50 | 0.75 ± 0.65 | 1.33 ± 0.86 | 0.06 ± 0.68 | 0.08 ± 0.82 | 0.406 |
| WMS-1 | 9.3 ± 3.4 | 6.5 ± 4.9 | 8.4 ± 3.1 | 6.8 ± 5.2 | −0.88 ± 2.9 | 0.25 ± 2.5 | 0.592 |
| WMS-2 | 5.8 ± 3.7 | 4.9 ± 4.5 | 6.4 ± 4.4 | 4.6 ± 5.5 | 0.63 ± 3.2 | −0.33 ± 2.4 | 0.670 |
| ADAS | 10.9 ± 5.8 | 17.6 ± 8.9 | 12.2 ± 9.4 | 17.5 ± 9.9 | 1.3 ± 6.4 | −0.13 ± 5.3 | 0.207 |
| GDS | 1.6 ± 1.1 | 2.1 ± 1.4 | 1.4 ± 2.0 | 2.6 ± 2.2 | −0.25 ± 2.7 | 0.5 ± 1.9 | 0.165 |
| GDS | 2.5 ± 1.9 | 2.5 ± 2.4 | 2.6 ± 2.9 | 2.6 ± 2.1 | 0.1 ± 2.7 | 0.1 ± 2.0 | 0.943 |
a We performed the same statistical analysis, described in Table 2. b The change between start-up and follow-up.
CDR and psychological test scores for APOE4 (−) subjects a.
| Startup | Follow-Up | Treatment × Time Interaction b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | Placebo | Active | Placebo | Active | Placebo | ||
| MMSE | 27.6 ± 2.1 | 27.3 ± 2.0 | 27.2 ± 2.6 | 26.8 ± 3.1 | −0.41 ± 1.7 | −0.46 ± 1.9 | 0.840 |
| gloCDR | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.44 ± 0.17 | 0.46 ± 0.14 | −0.059 ± 0.17 | −0.038 ± 0.14 | 0.477 |
| CDRsob | 0.88 ± 0.49 | 0.85 ± 0.47 | 0.82 ± 0.43 | 0.92 ± 0.64 | −0.059 ± 0.43 | 0.077 ± 0.76 | 0.602 |
| WMS-1 | 7.2 ± 4.8 | 7.5 ± 4.2 | 9.4 ± 4.9 | 9.5 ± 6.1 | 2.2 ± 2.3 | 2.0 ± 3.5 | 0.993 |
| WMS-2 | 5.1 ± 4.8 | 6.3 ± 4.6 | 6.8 ± 5.6 | 8.0 ± 6.5 | 1.7 ± 2.9 | 1.7 ± 3.3 | 0.997 |
| ADAS | 12.9 ± 8.2 | 13.6 ± 5.9 | 13.5 ± 8.2 | 13.4 ± 7.1 | 0.54 ± 3.3 | −0.20 ± 4.3 | 0.697 |
| GDS | 2.9 ± 2.0 | 2.8 ± 3.1 | 3.2 ± 3.1 | 2.5 ± 2.1 | 0.29 ± 2.8 | −0.30 ± 2.0 | 0.676 |
a We performed the same statistical analysis, described in Table 2. b The change between start-up and follow-up.
Figure 3The concentration of Aβ1-42 in the plasma of the APOE4 (+) subjects measured by ELISA. A dot shows data from a subject. A column represents 25–75 percentile of the data. A bar shows the average of the data and ± SD.
Figure 4The correlation between the Neuronal Activity Topography (sNAT) score and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score. sNAT scores were strongly correlated with the scores from MMSE (p < 0.001).
Figure 5A tendency toward improved sNAT scores in APOE4 (+) MCI subjects after 12 weeks of ACS. P: Placebo group; A: Active group.
Figure 6Electroencephalograms (EEG) based evaluation of the change of neural activity in APOE4/E4 MCI subjects by the supplementation. (a) Changes in the EEG pattern of subject #26 (Active group) from the start to the end of the trial, shown by blue circles in a two-dimensional NAT plot (sNAT compared to vNAT [23]) with data from both Alzheimer’s disease (AD) subjects (red triangles) and normal control subjects (normal (NL), green circles); (b) changes in the EEG pattern of subject #27 (Placebo group) from the start to the end of the trial; (c) sNAT images of subject #26 at the startup visit (baseline) and at follow-up. Note the elevated alpha-band activity at the occipital lobe and frontal lobes, suggesting improved EEG activity after ACS.