Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness predicts CSF amyloid/tau before cognitive decline.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology precedes symptoms and its detection can identify at-risk individuals who may benefit from early treatment. Since the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) is depleted in established AD, we tested whether its thickness can predict whether cognitively healthy (CH) individuals have a normal or pathological cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aß42 (A) and tau (T) ratio.
METHODS: As part of an ongoing longitudinal study, we enrolled CH individuals, excluding those with cognitive impairment and significant ocular pathology. We classified the CH group into two sub-groups, normal (CH-NAT, n = 16) or pathological (CH-PAT, n = 27), using a logistic regression model from the CSF AT ratio that identified >85% of patients with a clinically probable AD diagnosis. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) was acquired for RNFL, ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL), and macular thickness. Group differences were tested using mixed model repeated measures and a classification model derived using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: Mean age (± standard deviation) in the CH-PAT group (n = 27; 75.2 ± 8.4 years) was similar (p = 0.50) to the CH-NAT group (n = 16; 74.1 ± 7.9 years). Mean RNFL (standard error) was thinner in the CH-PAT group by 9.8 (2.7) μm; p < 0.001. RNFL thickness classified CH-NAT vs. CH-PAT with 87% sensitivity and 56.3% specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: Our retinal data predict which individuals have CSF biomarkers of AD pathology before cognitive deficits are detectable with 87% sensitivity. Such results from easy-to-acquire, objective and non-invasive measurements of the RNFL merit further study of OCT technology to monitor or screen for early AD pathology.

Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia and one of the most expensive diseases in America at a total cost of $290 billion in 2019 [1-3]. Over 26 million people are currently affected by AD worldwide, however this prevalence is estimated to quadruple by 2050. Widespread screening approaches are urgently needed to diagnose early disease stages to allow therapy trials before symptomatic decline [4,5].

In considering accessible and noninvasive screening approaches, ophthalmologic impairments including contrast sensitivity, color recognition, and motion perception have been reported in early stages of dementia, even prior to manifesting as a clear diagnosis of AD [6-12]. These visual dysfunctions in AD have been associated with degeneration of the optic nerve and retina, developmental outgrowths of the brain [13-15], since cortical deficits alone do not explain these visual deficits [11,12,16,17]. The first ocular manifestations of AD were shown by our laboratory, where the optic nerves of postmortem tissue exhibited diffuse axonal degeneration [18,19]. More recently, hallmark pathologies of neurodegeneration typical for AD in the brain have also been suggested in the retina. We previously demonstrated amyloid β-protein (Aβ) accumulation inside and around melanopsin-containing RGCs (mRGCs) in AD, possibly explaining circadian rhythm disturbances seen in these patients [20]. Additional studies have identified Aβ plaque pathology in postmortem retinas of AD patients as well as in early-stage disease [1,20-24]. Following the advent of optical coherence tomography (OCT), in vivo studies have revealed significant retinal thinning [16, 25–28]; however, the clinical utility of the retina as a biomarker for early AD has not been established [29-34].

The pre-symptomatic phase of AD is recognized in cognitively healthy (CH) individuals having AD pathology many years prior to symptom onset, based on altered amyloid and tau biomarkers detected using positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis [35,36]. For example, our laboratory recently demonstrated that pre-symptomatic AD can be detected more sensitively and specifically by the CSF Aβ42/Tau ratio relative to the concentration of these biomarkers independently [37, 38]. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether retinal thickness can predict whether CH individuals have a normal or pathological Aß42/Tau ratio.

Materials & methods

Human participants

The Institutional Review Boards of both the Huntington Medical Research Institutes (HMRI), Pasadena (IRB #33797) and the University of California Los Angeles (IRB #17001645) approved the protocol and consent forms for this study, which was conducted and performed in compliance with the ethical standards set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to enrollment, all study participants gave written, informed consent. Clinical and CSF studies were performed at HMRI, and ophthalmology assessments were conducted at the Doheny Eye Center, Department of Neuro-ophthalmology, Pasadena, CA.

Participants over 60 years of age were recruited locally at HMRI for aging research if they had no cognitive impairment after medical and neuropsychological assessment, using the Uniform Data Set criteria of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (https://www.alz.washington.edu/WEB/npsych_means.html) and after consensus clinical conference. CSF Aß42/Tau ratios were determined from lumbar fluid as described [37]. MSD assay (catalog no. K15199G, MSD, Rockville, MD) was used to determine CSF levels of Aβ42. MSD assay (catalog no. K15121G, MSD, Rockville, MD) was used to determine CSF levels of total tau. We used a logistic regression cutoff for the CSF Aß42/Tau ratio that correctly classified more than 85% of probable AD patients to identify two separate cohorts of the CH participants: those with Normal Aß42/Tau ratio (“CH-NAT”), or those with Pathological Aß42/Tau ratio (“CH-PAT”). We thus defined that CH-PAT individuals had preclinical AD.

Ophthalmic examination included tonometry, assessment of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), slit lamp examination of the anterior segment, and dilated fundus examination for all participants. Exclusion criteria for all groups were: BCVA < 20/50; refractive error > ± 5 spherical equivalent; poor image quality defined by an image signal less than 6 due to severe cataracts or unstable fixation; intraocular pressure (IOP) > 20mm Hg; pre-existing macular pathologies such as age-related macular degeneration, epiretinal membrane or macular hole; other retinopathies such as retinal vascular occlusion or retinal dystrophy; pre-existing ocular diseases such as glaucoma, optic neuropathy or uveitis; previous intraocular surgery or laser treatment except for cataract surgery performed at least 12 months prior to enrolment; penetrating ocular trauma; current active smoking status; and history or evidence of other neurological or psychiatric disorders, diabetes mellitus, poorly controlled systemic arterial hypertension defined by systolic > 150 and diastolic > 90, cardiovascular diseases, renal failure, substance abuse in the past 5 years, systemic corticosteroid use exceeding 6 months, and systemic autoimmune conditions with associated optic neuropathies.

Instrumentation and procedures

RNFL, RGC-IPL, and full macular thicknesses were measured for all participants using spectral-domain OCT (Cirrus SD-OCT, software v 6.0; Carl Zeiss Meditec). Scans were all acquired using the protocols for Optic Disc Cube 200 x 200 and the Macular Cube 512 x 128 in both eyes with pupil dilation. Following proper seating and alignment of each individual, the iris was brought into view using the mouse-driven alignment system, and the ophthalmoscopic image was focused. To acquire the Optic Disc Cube as seen in Fig 1A, the optic nerve head was centered on the live image, and centering and enhancement were optimized. After launching the scanning process, the instrument’s 840 nm wavelength laser beam generated a cube of data measuring 6 mm x 6 mm after scanning a series of 200 B-scans with 200 A-scans per B-scan (40,000 points) in 1.5 seconds (27,000 A-scans/sec). Cirrus SD-OCT algorithms were used to find the optic disc with automatic placement of a calculation circle measuring 3.46 mm in diameter symmetrically around it. Layerseeking algorithms were used to find the RNFL inner (anterior) boundary and the RNFL outer (posterior) boundary for the entire cube except the optic disc. The system extracted 256 A-scan samples from the data cube along the path of the calculation circle.

Fig 1

Illustrates optical coherence tomography imaging of the peripapillary and macular areas.

(A) The thicknesses of the 4 retinal nerve fiber layer quadrants (temporal, superior, nasal, inferior); (B) ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer sectors (superior-temporal, superior, superior-nasal, inferior-nasal, inferior, inferior-temporal; (C) macular full-thickness sectors (center, inner-superior, outer-superior, inner-inferior, outer-inferior, inner-temporal, outer-temporal, inner-nasal, outer-nasal) were measured using peripapillary and macular circular scans centered on the disc and on the fovea, respectively).

With respect to acquiring the Macular Cube, participants fixated on the central target. The ganglion cell analysis algorithm detected and measured the thickness of the macular RGC-IPL within a 14.13-mm2 elliptical annulus area centered on the fovea (Fig 1B). The ganglion cell analysis algorithm processed data from 3-dimensional volume scans and measured the thickness of the macular RGC-IPL. The average, minimum, and 6 sectoral (superotemporal, superior, superonasal, inferonasal, inferior, and inferotemporal) RGC-IPL thicknesses were measured from centering the elliptical annulus on the fovea (Fig 1B). Retinal thickness maps of the total macular region were acquired using the macular cube scan within a 6 × 6-mm2 circular area centered on the fovea. Measurements were averaged over 9-retinal subfields, as defined by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) (Fig 1C). A published, detailed description of this algorithm and how it operates is available for reference [39]. The built-in SD-OCT eye-tracking system provided reproducible measurements with a coefficient of variation of 0.5% [40].

An experienced operator captured all images. Individual scan volumes were reviewed for segmentation errors. Scans with significant motion artifacts, segmentation errors, or signal strength values less than 6 were excluded from analysis. To maximize the reflective signal, polarization was optimized and the scan with the best centration of the optic disc was consistently selected. The thicknesses of the three regions were then compared between the two cohorts and correlated with their CSF levels of Aß42, Tau, and Aß42/Tau ratio.

Statistical methods

Comparisons between groups on retinal thickness were made using mixed model repeated measures with unstructured covariance. Group (CH-NAT, CH-PAT), layer (RNFL, GC-IPL, macula), side (OD, OS), and region (S, N, I, T) were fixed effects. Error degrees of freedom was calculated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation. Model assumptions were checked using Q-Q and scatter plots of residuals. Model-based least-squares (LS) means, standard errors, and p-values for tests of differences in LS means are reported.

Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict CH-PAT group membership (dependent variable) based on retinal thickness (independent variables). Only subjects with all data points available (retinal thickness for all 3 layers, both sides, and all 4 regions) were included. Correlations between pairs of independent variables were assessed to minimize collinearity; for highly correlated pairs (r > 0.7), only the variable with the strongest association with group was retained as a candidate predictor. Independently significant predictors constituted the final model. A cutoff value for the probability that a given subject is CH-PAT was selected based on sensitivity and specificity, and the cutoff probability was entered into the left side of the final model equation to derive a decision boundary.

Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05, two-sided. As an exploratory study, no adjustments were made for multiplicity. Analyses were done using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary NC).

Results

Twenty-seven participants were classified as CH-PAT (mean age ± standard deviation 75.2 ± 8.4 years; 48% female) and 16 as CH-NAT (mean age 74.1 ± 7.4 years; 56% female).

There were no significant group differences at the macular or GC-IPL locations in the OCT data (S1 Table). However, mean RNFL was thinner (p = 0.0009) in the CH-PAT than CH-NAT group, as summarized in Table 1. Fig 2 displays the 10μm difference between these groups. The difference between groups in mean RNFL thinning was significant at the nasal location (S2 Table). The CSF Aß42/ Tau ratio was more correlated with RNFL thinning compared to individual biomarkers, however examination of the roles of each independent biomarker displayed in the scatter plots of S1 Fig suggests that the CSF total Tau levels correlate more with RNFL thinning than Aß42.

Table 1

Retinal thickness by layer.

Layer	CH-NAT (N = 16 subjects)		CH-PAT (N = 27 subjects)		p-value
RNFL
n	128		192
Mean (SD)	88.76	(24.290)	84.24	(24.112)
LS Mean (SE)1	93.27	(2.201)	83.46	(1.812)	0.0009
Median	92.75		86.00
IQR	65.00	- 108.00	61.25	- 102.75
Range	48.0	- 135.0	41.0	- 133.0
GC-IPL
n	186		306
Mean (SD)	74.42	(6.316)	73.09	(6.693)
LS Mean (SE)1	75.06	(1.312)	73.13	(1.068)	0.22
Median	74.50		73.50
IQR	70.00	- 78.50	69.00	- 77.00
Range	59.0	- 93.0	52.0	- 94.0
Macula
n	279		459
Mean (SD)	294.48	(29.663)	287.27	(28.936)
LS Mean (SE)1	291.67	(4.110)	288.97	(3.191)	0.60
Median	293.50		290.00
IQR	270.00	- 318.00	264.00	- 309.50
Range	232.5	- 383.5	211.0	- 355.0

Abbreviations: GC-IPL, ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer; IQR, interquartile range; LS, least-squares; n, number of measurements; RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.

1 Adjusted for side (OD, OS) and region (S, I, T, N).

Fig 2

Depicts least-squares mean (95% CI) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness adjusted for side and region between cognitively healthy controls (blue) and preclinical AD participants (red).

Logistic regression was used to predict CH-PAT from S, N, I, T regions for each of OD and OS. The best model included only OD_T and OD_N as predictors (all of the OS measurements were highly correlated with their OD counterparts, but not nearly as predictive). This required omitting from the analysis participants with any missing data of the 8 possible predictors, which resulted in the exclusion of 4 individuals. After determining the best model (OD_T and OD_N), a cutoff for predicted event probability was chosen such that sensitivity was at least 85% and specificity was maximized. The selected cutoff of 0.46 yielded 87% sensitivity and 56% specificity (AUC = 0.83).

Discussion

These results extend the findings of optic neuropathy being a common feature in AD as first demonstrated by our laboratory over 30 years ago [19]. More recently, the availability of sensitive and reliable retinal imaging techniques has revealed a number of retinal abnormalities in earlier stages of AD [28]. The major finding from this study is that RNFL thickness measure by OCT was able to predict the biochemical class of CH-NAT vs. CH-PAT in cognitively healthy, older individuals with high sensitivity (Fig 2 and Table 2). This is the first study to predict pre-symptomatic AD pathology with high sensitivity using non-invasive technology and provides an opportunity to encourage widespread screening.

Table 2

Logistic regression model for the probability of CH-PAT based on retinal thickness in the retinal nerve fiber layer.

Parameter	Coefficient	(SE)	Odds Ratio	(95% CI)	p-value
Intercept	15.62	(5.120)	--	--	--
OD Side, Region N	-0.10	(0.041)	0.91	(0.84, 0.98)	0.02
OD Side, Region T	-0.14	(0.052)	0.87	(0.79, 0.97)	0.008

We assessed retinal pathology in relation to both CSF Aß and Tau. When analyzed individually, CSF Tau was more associated with RNFL thickness relative to amyloid. Notably, this observed relationship between CSF protein levels and the retina is similar to that observed when CSF Aß is known to be inversely correlated with Aß load and neuropathology in the brain, whereas CSF Tau is known to be directly correlated. More importantly, the combined ratio of CSF Aß and Tau has been shown to predict AD neuropathology with high accuracy, outweighing the performance of these proteins individually [41]. Our findings are further supported by recent studies illustrating the role of Tau dysfunction in pre-symptomatic AD, whereby Tau pathology of the retina may precede pathology of the brain and cognitive loss [42]. The present results on the retina support our previous findings in regard to the advantages of using an index for the ratio of two biomarkers for predicting AD pathology [37], suggesting that both amyloid and Tau likely contribute, independently, to retinal pathology.

We found significant RNFL thinning in pre-symptomatic AD participants. Studies in patients with symptomatic cognitive impairment including AD have also shown RNFL thinning, which significantly correlated with visual function and cognitive deficits [43-52]. Studies have also illustrated retinal atrophy of the macular region. Cunha et al. reported thinning of the GC-IPL and macular full-thickness reduction in addition peripapillary RNFL loss [53]. The group found significant correlations between cognitive function testing and retinal thickness in both the peripapillary and macular regions [53]. Additional studies conducted by Martin et al. investigated retinal layer thickness changes in relation to disease duration and severity [25]. Notably, RNFL thinning in AD occurred early while RGCL as well as outer retinal layer thinning occurred later [25]. This progressive pattern of RNFL loss followed by RGCL loss is consistent with previous studies conducted by our laboratory using postmortem histopathology [54]. These tissues were histopathologically confirmed for Aβ deposition and were derived from patients who were neuropathologically confirmed for severe AD. In addition, retinal layer thickness profiles matched the distribution of retinal Aβ deposits in these tissues, as previously demonstrated by our laboratory and others [20, 21,23,54–56].

Our study also showed thinning of the GC-IPL and macular full-thickness regions, though these were not statistically significant. Longitudinal studies conducted by Santos et al. have reported similar findings [57]. Specifically, Santos and colleagues found significant thinning primarily of the RNFL in preclinical AD [57]. Macular thinning involving the inner plexiform and outer nuclear layers were also observed. However, these thickness changes were reportedly attributed to age-related decline, as expected over the timespan of the study. Notably, only the RNFL significantly correlated with neocortical amyloid load as measured by positron emission tomography [57]. These results corroborate our retinal thickness findings and support the premise that nerve fiber layer axonal loss as measured by OCT precedes symptomatic cognitive decline.

Retinal thickness changes have also been investigated in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Previous OCT studies have illustrated retinal thinning in MCI, although less severe relative to AD [18,30,34,46,50,58-60]. These findings might suggest MCI as a transitional stage between normal cognitive function and dementia. Notably, however, prior studies have been variable in their results. Ascaso et al. and Oktem et al. reported significant RNFL thinning in MCI [34,50], whereas Almeida et al. found significant GC-IPL thinning [61] or no significant retinal thinning [62,63]. In addition, Ascaso et al. and Oktem et al. reported a significant correlation between RNFL thickness and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores in MCI [34,50], while Almeida et al. observed a significant correlation between GC-IPL thickness and MMSE scores [61]. In turn, retinal thickness findings in MCI have been controversial and the utility of the retina as a marker of disease conversion from MCI to AD remains inconclusive. These discrepant findings between studies may be attributed to confounding factors including segmentation algorithms, variability between OCT devices, and the diagnostic criteria for AD and MCI [28,64,65]. Researchers have largely relied on the MMSE as a screening measure of general cognitive function. Importantly, however, this test has several reported psychometric limitations and may not always be a reliable cognitive marker [66]. MCI is a complex, heterogeneous stage of cognitive decline. Patients may not progress to AD, may revert back to normal cognitive health, or may advance to non-AD dementia [67].

Our present study on early AD pathology differed in two ways that are important because the pathology is known to start many years before symptoms. Our two test groups were both cognitively healthy as defined after detailed neuropsychiatric testing and were biochemically differentiated based on cutoff levels that are established in AD for CSF Aß42 and total tau biomarkers.

Previous reports have evaluated retinal thickness changes in preclinical AD using OCT. Few have examined CSF protein levels, although exclusively with respect to Aß, and have found little or no correlation between OCT findings and neurologic parameters [43, 68]. Notably, however, Tau burden has been shown to be more consistent with level of cognitive impairment in AD than cerebral Aß accumulation [44, 69]. The current article analyzes, for the first time, retinal morphology in relation to both CSF Aß and Tau CSF levels. Strengths of the current study include not only rigorous selection of pre-symptomatic participants, but also using a cutoff for CSF Aß /Tau ratios that was previously demonstrated by our laboratory to correctly predict 85% of participants with AD.

Limitations of this study are those that would be expected in an exploratory approach. The statistical models require validation, and the findings need to be replicated and applied to different populations to assess both neurological and ophthalmological disease, physiological, and cultural/ethnic specificity. Nevertheless, the present article represents the largest study of RNFL as measured by OCT in preclinical AD. Our investigation was also cross-sectional in nature. Proper characterization of disease natural history requires a long-term longitudinal follow-up study. Therefore, we intend to use these results as baseline values for future longitudinal studies. Further investigation is necessary to precisely elucidate the mechanism of retinal pathology observed in these cohorts. Sensitive retinal biomarkers may be advantageous given their cost and time efficiency in addition to their non-invasiveness and high level of accessibility [44]. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to investigate retinal nerve fiber thickness as a potential screening tool for individuals at risk for AD, thereby maximizing sensitivity. Our laboratory is in the process of deriving a balanced cut-off that maximizes sensitivity in addition to specificity. OCT measurements have the immediate potential to allow rapid data acquisition in studies of AD patients or those at risk for AD with the objective of building a large database of RNFL thickness in different AD patient populations.

Conclusions

We report that RNFL thickness of cognitively healthy older individuals predicts CSF amyloid/tau, the gold standard biomarker of AD pathology, with 87% sensitivity in a cross-sectional study. Because OCT is widely available, we think this data may inspire a large community health opportunity to evaluate screening for individuals at risk for AD.

AD OCT scatter plots for OD: Series 1 = CH-PAT; Series 2 = CH-NAT.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Feb 2020

PONE-D-20-02170

Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness predicts CSF amyloid/tau before cognitive decline

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Harrington,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers indicated that your research is technically sound and that the data are analyzed properly. However, reviewer two requests more thorough discussion of why your results differ from those of previous published studies suggesting macular assessment as being more sensitive in detecting neuronal changes in both AD and MCI patients.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 02 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2731003

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figures and Tables, which you refer to in your text on page 19-25.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a well written paper where Harrington et al correlate cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers with retinal nerve fiber layer.

However, minor changes might improve the quality of the manuscript:

First, I cannot see the number of cases included in the abstract.

Second, the conclussion might be a very categorical statement: “ Retinal data have sufficient sensitivity to predict which patients have CSF biomarkers of AD pathology before cognitive deficits are detectable”, as this is only one study with a small number of patients.

In line 113, the abbreviation of RGC-IPL should be explained.

Some references have a point after the journals and other not. Please amend the references section.

Reviewer #2: The authors included cognitively healthy individuals and divided them in to groups, based on normal or pathological CSF Abeta42 and tau ratio. They correlated and compared the two gropus using OCT-SD RNFL, ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer and macular thickness. They found a RNFL thickness reduction in cognitively healthy individuals with pathological CSF. They concluded RNFL thickness can be used with sufficient sensitivity to predict wich patients have CSF biomarkers of AD pathology before cognitive are detectable.

The results are interesting pointing toward the valeu of OCT as a pre-clinical predictor in AD patients. However, the results seems to be somewhat conflicting with many previous publications that point to macular assessment as being more sensitive in detecting neuronal changes in both AD and MCI patients. How do the authors justify these differences? This should be addressed in more depth in the discussion. Studies involving patients with MCI show changes in macular thickness, especially with ganglion cell complexes around the central 3 mm of the fovea, while RNFL was preserved in these patients (Almeida ALM, Pires LA, Figueiredo EA, Costa-Cunha LVF, Zacharias LC, Preti RC, Monteiro MLR, Cunha LP. Correlation between cognitive impairment and retinal neural loss assessed by swept-source optical coherence tomography in patients

with mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2019) In these studies, it was also demonstrated that the thickness analysis divided into 9 sectors (and not six as performed in the present study) according to the ETDRS map seems to be more sensitive. These similar findings were also demonstrated in patients with AD in other studies. (Santos CY, Johnson LN, Sinoff SE, Festa EK, Heindel WC, Snyder PJ. Change in retinal structural anatomy during the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2018 Feb 7;10:196-209. Cunha LP, Lopes LC, Costa-Cunha LV, Costa CF, Pires LA, Almeida AL, Monteiro ML. Macular Thickness Measurements with Frequency Domain-OCT for Quantification of Retinal Neural Loss and its Correlation with Cognitive Impairment in Alzheimer's Disease. PLoS One. 2016 Apr 22;11(4):e0153830.

There is sufficient evidence suggesting that there is a primary involvement of the retina in patients with AD and that these changes (neuronal impairment with decreased ganglion cell complex) may occur earlier than axonal loss, which contrasts with the findings of the present study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Alfonso Casado

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 Apr 2020

For the initial journal requirements:

1. We have checked and complied with PLOS ONE’s publication criteria.

2. We have changed the overlapping text from a previous paper at the start of the Intro.

3. We have included the Supp Figures and tables.

Reviewer 1:

Comment 1:

“First, I cannot see the number of cases included in the abstract.”

Authors reply

We thank the reviewer for this comment and have clarified the number of cases in the abstract.

Comment 2:

“Second, the conclusion might be a very categorical statement: “Retinal data have sufficient sensitivity to predict which patients have CSF biomarkers of AD pathology before cognitive deficits are detectable”, as this is only one study with a small number of patients.”

Authors reply

We appreciate this comment and agree that this may be viewed as a categorical statement. We modify the manuscript by qualifying our conclusion according to the findings specific to our study.

Comment 3:

“In line 113, the abbreviation of RGC-IPL should be explained.”

Authors reply

We thank the reviewer for this comment and have modified the manuscript accordingly:

Comment 4:

“Some references have a point after the journals and other not. Please amend the references section.”

Authors reply

We appreciate this comment and we have amended the References accordingly.

Reviewer 2:

Comment 1:

“The results seems to be somewhat conflicting with many previous publications that point to macular assessment as being more sensitive in detecting neuronal changes in both AD and MCI patients. How do the authors justify these differences? This should be addressed in more depth in the discussion. Studies involving patients with MCI show changes in macular thickness, especially with ganglion cell complexes around the central 3 mm of the fovea, while RNFL was preserved in these patients (Almeida, et al. Alzheimers Dement 2019).”

Authors reply

We appreciate this comment and agree with providing a more in-depth discussion of our findings relative to previous studies. In agreement with the reviewer, we acknowledge previous findings suggesting progressive retinal thinning from MCI to AD. As referenced by the reviewer, Almeida et al. found ganglion cell complex thinning. We would like to explain that retinal thickness findings in MCI have been controversial. We add to the manuscript by describing previous studies conducted by Ascaso et al. and Oktem et al., which showed significant RNFL thinning in MCI and this thinning was found to significantly correlate with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores (Ascaso et al., 2014; Oktem et al., 2015). We also reference studies, which showed no significant retinal thinning in MCI (Pillai et al., 2016; Feke et al., 2015). We further revise the manuscript by describing potential confounding factors that reportedly contribute to conflicting findings between studies including variability in OCT modalities, diagnostic criteria for subject enrollment, as well as the heterogeneity of MCI. We have modified the manuscript Discussion and have included the corresponding References accordingly.

Comment 2:

“In these studies, it was also demonstrated that the thickness analysis divided into 9 sectors (and not six as performed in the present study) according to the ETDRS map seems to be more sensitive.”

Authors reply

We appreciate and thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to clarify that measurements for the GC-IPL were acquired using the standard 6-retinal sector elliptical annulus. With respect to macular full-thickness, measurements were determined using 9-retinal subfields, as defined by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) as shown in the newly added, Figure 1C. This is consistent with previously published protocols using the spectral-domain OCT (Cirrus, Zeiss). As referenced by the reviewer, Almeida et al. and Cunha et al. similarly measured macular thickness using the ETDRS grid. We would like to mention that Santos et al. measured both ganglion cell complex macular full-thickness using a 4-sector grid. In addition, Almeida et al., Cunha et al., and Santos et al., each differ in their OCT technology and device models (SS-OCT, fd-OCT, and Heidelberg SPECTRALIS SD-OCT, respectively), which intrinsically vary in computational analysis. As suggested by the reviewer, we acknowledge that differences in OCT devices and segmentation algorithms may contribute to variable retinal thickness findings. We have modified the manuscript Methods and Discussion sections to reflect these changes.

Comment 3:

“These similar findings were also demonstrated in patients with AD in other studies (Santos CY, et al. Alzheimers Dement 2018 and Cunha LP, et al. PLoS One 2016). There is sufficient evidence suggesting that there is a primary involvement of the retina in patients with AD and that these changes (neuronal impairment with decreased ganglion cell complex) may occur earlier than axonal loss, which contrasts with the findings of the present study.”

Authors reply

We appreciate this comment and agree with further discussing our findings in relation to previous studies in AD. As suggested by the reviewer, we justify our findings by describing previous studies in AD, which have similarly shown RNFL thinning and a significant correlation to visual function and cognitive deficits43-52. We would like to mention that the referenced AD study conducted by Cunha et al. study showed both ganglion cell complex and RNFL axonal loss; and these were both shown to significantly correlate with cognitive function testing. In addition, studies conducted by Martin et al. on retinal thickness changes in relation to AD duration and severity showed RNFL thinning preceded ganglion cell loss. We further support our results by discussing recent findings reported by our laboratory in AD using postmortem histopathology54. We would also like to point out that Santos et al. primarily found RNFL axonal loss in preclinical AD57. Ganglion cell layer, inner plexiform layer, as well as outer nuclear layer thickness changes were regarded as non-significant findings. We have modified the manuscript Discussion and the corresponding References to reflect these changes.

We are grateful to the reviewers for their supportive and helpful comments and for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised and improved version of our manuscript. We have responded to all the points raised by the reviewers and yourself, modifying the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point answers are provided above and in the corrected manuscript. We hope that you now find the revised tracked and clean manuscript versions suitable for publication. Please let us know if there are further questions.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

22 Apr 2020

Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness predicts CSF amyloid/tau before cognitive decline

PONE-D-20-02170R1

Dear Dr. Harrington,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All suggested changes have been made and the manuscript have improved. The results are interesting and their relevance is medium-high.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Alfonso Casado, MD, PhD,Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL

Reviewer #2: Yes: Leonardo Provetti Cunha

12 May 2020

PONE-D-20-02170R1

Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness predicts CSF amyloid/tau before cognitive decline

Dear Dr. Harrington:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alfred S Lewin

Section Editor

PLOS ONE