| Literature DB >> 33876815 |
Shaozhen Yan1,2, Chaojie Zheng2,3, Manish D Paranjpe4, Yanxiao Li3,5, Weihua Li1, Xiuying Wang5, Tammie L S Benzinger2,6, Jie Lu1, Yun Zhou2,3.
Abstract
Recent studies in cognitively unimpaired elderly individuals suggest that the APOE ε4 allele exerts a dosage-dependent effect on brain tau deposition. The aim of this study was to investigate sex differences in APOE ε4 gene dosage effects on brain tau deposition in cognitively impaired individuals using quantitative 18F-flortaucipir PET. Preprocessed 18F-flortaucipir tau PET images, T1-weighted structural MRI, demographic information, global cortical amyloid-β burden measured by 18F-florbetapir PET, CSF total tau and phosphorylated tau measurements were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Two hundred and sixty-eight cognitively impaired individuals with 146 APOE ε4 non-carriers and 122 carriers (85 heterozygotes and 37 homozygotes) were included in the study. An iterative reblurred Van Cittert iteration partial volume correction method was applied to all downloaded PET images. Magnetic resonance images were used for PET spatial normalization. Twelve regional standardized uptake value ratios relative to the cerebellum were computed in standard space. APOE ε4 dosage × sex interaction effect on 18F-flortaucipir standardized uptake value ratios was assessed using generalized linear models and sex-stratified analysis. We observed a significant APOE ε4 dosage × sex interaction effect on tau deposition in the lateral temporal, posterior cingulate, medial temporal, inferior temporal, entorhinal cortex, amygdala, parahippocampal gyrus regions after adjusting for age and education level (P < 0.05). The medial temporal, entorhinal cortex, amygdala and parahippocampal gyrus regions retained a significant APOE ε4 dosage × sex interaction effect on tau deposition after adjusting for global cortical amyloid-β (P < 0.05). In sex-stratified analysis, there was no significant difference in tau deposition between female homozygotes and heterozygotes (P > 0.05). In contrast, male homozygotes standardized uptake value ratios were significantly greater than heterozygotes or non-carriers throughout all 12 regions of interest (P < 0.05). Female heterozygotes exhibited significantly increased tau deposition compared to male heterozygotes in the orbitofrontal, posterior cingulate, lateral temporal, inferior temporal, entorhinal cortex, amygdala and parahippocampal gyrus (P < 0.05). Results from voxel-wise analysis were similar to the ones obtained from regions of interest analysis. Our findings indicate that an APOE ε4 dosage effect on brain region-specific tau deposition exists in males, but not females. These results have important clinical implications towards developing sex and genotype-guided therapeutics in Alzheimer's disease and uncovers a potential explanation underlying differential APOE ε4-associated Alzheimer's risk in males and females.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 18F-flortaucipir PET; Alzheimer’s disease; apolipoprotein E; dose effect; sex
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33876815 PMCID: PMC8634082 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awab160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain ISSN: 0006-8950 Impact factor: 13.501
Clinical characteristics of the study cohort
| Parameter (±SD) | Female | Male | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Alzheimer’s disease/MCI, | 12/42 | 11/27 | 5/10 | 17/75 | 17/30 | 9/13 |
| Age, years ± SD (range) | 76.62 ± 9.23 (56–93) | 73.70 ± 7.26 (61–88) | 69.86 ± 6.75 | 78.13 ± 8.06 (57–94) | 77.49 ± 7.57 (59–90) | 73.38 ± 9.77 |
| Education, years ± SD | 15.19 ± 2.37 | 14.89 ± 2.22 | 15.67 ± 2.58 | 16.61 ± 2.66 | 16.51 ± 2.76 | 16.86 ± 3.17 |
| MMSE, score ± SD | 26.17 ± 4.55 | 25.50 ± 3.94 | 25.67 ± 4.53 | 27.04 ± 3.60 | 25.81 ± 3.88 | 25.00 ± 3.83 |
| CDR, score ± SD | 0.62 ± 0.49 | 0.63 ± 0.40 | 0.70 ± 0.41 | 0.53 ± 0.28 | 0.60 ± 0.46 | 0.66 ± 0.36 |
| ADAS13, score ± SD | 21.52 ± 11.11 | 17.59 ± 9.51 | 19.38 ± 7.62 | 18.09 ± 8.21 | 19.29 ± 8.66 | 17.30 ± 11.86 |
|
18F-florbetapir PET, | 44 | 23 | 9 | 66 | 30 | 16 |
| Aβ positive (%) | 25/54 (46.30) | 32/38 (84.21) | 15/15 (100.00) | 35/92 (32.61) | 37/47 (78.72) | 21/22 (95.45) |
| APOE ε2 ε4, | 5 | 5 | ||||
| CSF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CSF Aβ42 (pg/ml ± SD) | 1379.30 ± 728.11 | 845.80 ± 459.71 | 613.70 ± 217.87 | 1314.27 ± 763.47 | 786.86 ± 426.06 | 499.36 ± 124.55 |
| CSF t-tau (pg/ml ± SD) | 265.65 ± 128.30 | 370.47 ± 148.29 | 406.11 ± 250.91 | 261.42 ± 121.17 | 305.03 ± 105.58 | 280.17 ± 97.14 |
| CSF p-tau (pg/ml ± SD) | 23.99 ± 13.78 | 37.06 ± 18.71 | 43.18 ± 30.94 | 24.22 ± 13.37 | 30.06 ± 12.07 | 28.19 ± 11.07 |
ADAS = Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale; Aβ = amyloid-β; CDR = Clinical Dementia Rating Scale; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination. Amyloid-β status was positive (negative) if amyloid-β load was higher (lower) than 18F-florbetaben cortical SUVR based on the whole cerebellum reference = 1.08 and 18F-florbetapir = 1.11 (adni.loni.usc.edu/methods).
P < 0.05 compared to non-carriers.
P < 0.01 compared to non-carriers.
Figure 1Mean (± SD) of SUVR for APOE ε4 non-carriers (green), heterozygotes (purple) and homozygotes (red) are depicted. P-value was defined using a generalized linear model, adjusting for age, years of education and sex. SUVR: Standardized uptake value ratio. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
APOE ε4 dosage × sex interaction effect on tau deposition in cognitively impaired participants
| Region of interest | Not adjusted for global cortical amyloid level | Adjusted for global cortical amyloid level | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| APOE ε4 × Sex | FDR |
| APOE ε4 × Sex | FDR | |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Orbital frontal | −0.08 (−0.13 to 0.05) |
| 0.06 | −0.02 (−0.11 to 0.10) | 0.82 | 0.95 |
| Prefrontal | −0.07 (−0.13 to 0.06) | 0.12 | 0.14 | −0.01 (−0.11 to 0.09) | 0.88 | 0.95 |
| Superior frontal | −0.03 (−0.13 to 0.09) | 0.38 | 0.38 | −0.01 (−0.13 to 0.12) | 0.80 | 0.95 |
| Lateral temporal | −0.03 (−0.12 to 0.18) |
|
| 0.09 (−0.09 to 0.25) | 0.20 | 0.43 |
| Parietal | 0.00 (−0.14 to 0.14) | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.03 (−0.13 to 0.18) | 0.57 | 0.93 |
| Posterior precuneus | −0.06 (−0.20 to 0.09) |
| 0.07 | −0.03 (−0.18 to 0.14) | 0.96 | 0.96 |
| Posterior cingulate | 0.01 (−0.16 to 0.18) |
|
| 0.06 (−0.13 to 0.25) | 0.30 | 0.56 |
| Medial temporal | 0.15 (−0.01 to 0.21) |
|
| 0.22 (0.04 to 0.28) |
|
|
| Inferior temporal | 0.03 (−0.14 to 0.19) |
|
| 0.10 (−0.08 to 0.29) | 0.16 | 0.42 |
| Entorhinal cortex | 0.21 (0.03 to 0.33) |
|
| 0.30 (0.12 to 0.47) |
|
|
| Amygdala | 0.12 (−0.04 to 0.26) |
|
| 0.19 (0.02 to 0.37) |
| 0.07 |
| Parahippocampal | 0.16 (−0.01 to 0.21) |
|
| 0.23 (0.04 to 0.29) |
|
|
P-value was defined using a generalized linear model to detect significant APOE ε4 dosage × sex interaction effect in cognitively impaired individuals. Age and education were included as covariates. Global cortical amyloid SUVR was also included as a covariate in the right column using 188 individuals with 18F-florbetapir PET data. FDR P-value was defined using Benjamini–Hochberg procedure to control the FDR; 95% CI represents the 95% confidence interval of the APOE ε4 dosage by sex coefficient.
Figure 2Mean images with and without PVC illustrate that sex modulates the PVC images show (A) increased contrast and spatial resolution compared to images without PVC (B). Both PVC and non-PVC images visually demonstrate an interaction effect between sex and APOE ε4 status.
Figure 3Sex modifies the Box plots depict median value and the interquartile ranges of regional SUVRs for APOE ε4 non-carriers (green), heterozygotes (purple) and homozygotes (red) in females and males. P-value was defined using a generalized linear model, adjusting for age and years of education. F = female; M = male. Bold significance lines indicate comparison between APOE ε4 dosage groups. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4Sex modifies the APOE ε4 dose effect on voxel-wise SUVR is depicted in (A) females and (B) males. Female heterozygotes (A, left) and homozygotes (A, right) display increased 18F-flortaucipir SUVR compared to non-carriers. No significant differences in SUVR were observed between female heterozygotes and homozygotes. Male homozygotes demonstrate increased 18F-flortaucipir SUVR compared to male heterozygotes (B, left) and male non-carriers (B, right). No significant differences in SUVR were observed between male heterozygotes and male non-carriers. T-values are expressed on blue–red scale from 0 to 5 depicting voxels level with P < 0.001 (adjusted for age and years of education).
Clusters with significant association between 18F-flortaucipir SUVR and APOE ε4 dosage
| Clusters | Female | Male | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Homozygotes >heterozygotes | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Temporal_Mid_L | −63 | −28.5 | −21 | 55 | −66 | 0 | −54 | −26 | −5 | − | − | − |
| Temporal_Mid_R | − | − | − | 55 | −21 | −21 | 58 | −21 | −7 | 60 | −30 | 0 |
| Temporal_Sup_R | − | − | − | 64.5 | −33 | 16.5 | 57 | −6 | 2 | − | − | − |
| ParaHippocampal_L | −18 | −9 | −18 | −22 | −12 | −25 | −18 | −6 | −21 | − | − | − |
| ParaHippocampal_R | 18 | −7.5 | −18 | 18 | −7.5 | −18 | 18 | −4 | −22 | − | − | − |
| Cingulum_Mid_L | − | − | − | -6 | −43 | 20 | 9 | −27 | 36 | −6 | −22 | 36 |
| − | − | − | ||||||||||
| Cingulum_Mid_R | − | − | − | 9 | −43 | 26 | 9 | −24 | 41 | 10.5 | −51 | 45 |
| Parietal_Inf_L | −52.5 | −52.5 | 42 | −44 | −48 | 40 | −42 | −48 | 43 | 9 | −57 | 58.5 |
| Parietal_Inf_R | 34.5 | −52.5 | 46.5 | − | − | − | 45 | −53 | 53 | 33 | −54 | 54 |
| Parietal_Sup_L | −31.5 | −63 | 60 | −30 | −67.5 | 57 | −24 | −67 | 51 | − | − | − |
| Frontal_Mid_L | − | − | − | − | − | − | −4 | 59 | 17 | − | − | − |
| Frontal_Mid_R | 28.5 | 34.5 | 36 | − | − | − | 13.5 | 27 | 57 | − | − | − |
Data extracted from SPM12 analysis showing voxels with significantly increased 18F-flortaucipir SUVR in cognitively impaired female APOE ε4 homozygotes versus non-carriers, female heterozygotes versus female non-carriers, male APOE ε4 homozygotes versus male non-carriers, male homozygotes versus male heterozygotes, adjusted for age and years of education. There were no significant differences between female homozygotes and female heterozygotes or between male heterozygotes and male non-carriers (not listed in Table 3). Cluster locations correspond to the brain maps shown in Fig. 3. Atlas coordinates were obtained from Automated Anatomical Labelling (AAL).