| Literature DB >> 33994988 |
Xiaocao Liu1, Qingze Zeng1, Xiao Luo1, Kaicheng Li1, Hui Hong1, Shuyue Wang1, Xiaojun Guan1, Jingjing Wu1, Ruiting Zhang1, Tianyi Zhang2, Zheyu Li2, Yanv Fu2, Tao Wang1, Chao Wang1, Xiaojun Xu1, Peiyu Huang1, Minming Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε2 is a protective genetic factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the potential interaction effects between the APOE ε2 allele and disease status on the intrinsic brain activity remain elusive.Entities:
Keywords: APOE; Alzheimer’s disease; fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation; mild cognitive impairment; resting-state functional MRI
Year: 2021 PMID: 33994988 PMCID: PMC8117101 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.591347
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Demographic characteristics and cognitive scores of the study population.
| APOE ε 3/ε 3 HC | APOE ε 2/ε 3 HC | APOE ε 3/ε 3 MCI | APOE ε 2/ε 3 MCI | F/χ 2 | ||
| Number | 73 | 24 | 61 | 10 | ||
| Age, years, mean (SD) | 73.06 ± 5.81 | 73.04 ± 5.05 | 70.67 ± 6.78 | 70.51 ± 7.43 | 2.07 | 0.11 |
| Gender (M/F) | 28/45 | 11/13 | 32/29 | 7/3 | 5.04 | 0.17 |
| Education, years, mean (SD) | 16.67 ± 2.39 | 16.50 ± 2.55 | 16.21 ± 2.27 | 15.50 ± 2.80 | 0.92 | 0.43 |
| ADNI-MEM | 1.12 ± 0.56 | 1.12 ± 0.56 | 1.14 ± 0.80 | 0.96 ± 0.67 | 21.73 | 0.00abcd |
| ADNI-EF | 1.14 ± 0.80 | 1.01 ± 0.68 | 0.45 ± 0.95 | 0.62 ± 0.69 | 8.12 | 0.00abc |
| ADNI-LAN | 0.96 ± 0.67 | 0.87 ± 0.66 | 0.34 ± 0.76 | 0.57 ± 0.65 | 9.13 | 0.00abc |
| ADNI-VS | 0.27 ± 0.55 | 0.28 ± 0.57 | −0.40 ± 0.71 | −0.88 ± 0.92 | 3.55 | 0.16b |
FIGURE 1The decreased fractional amplitude low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF) was found in the transverse temporal gyrus in the APOE ε2/ε3 carriers groups compared to the APOE ε3/ε3 carriers’ groups. The statistical threshold was set at p < 0.01 with a cluster-level p < 0.05 (two-tailed, GRF corrected).
FIGURE 2The increased fractional amplitude low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF) were found in the inferior parietal lobule (IPL) among healthy controls (HC) with APOE ε3/ε3, HC with APOE ε2/ε3, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with APOE ε3/ε3, and MCI with APOE ε2/ε3. The results were obtained by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis adjusted with GM [p < 0.01, cluster level < 0.05, two-tailed, Gaussian random field (GRF) correction].
FIGURE 3The “APOE × disease” (interaction) effects between APOE and cognitive status were shown. In addition, the average fALFF values in the IPL of groups were demonstrated. *Represents p < 0.05 between MCI and HC. #Represents p < 0.05 between APOE ε3/ε3 and APOE ε2/ε3 in MCI.
Analysis of the covariance (ANCOVA) results across the four groups.
| Brain region | Peak MNI coordinate | Peak intensity | Number of voxels | |||
| X | Y | Z | ||||
| Interaction Effect | IPL | 51 | −27 | 24 | 22.884 | 15 |
| Genotype Effect | Transverse Temporal Gyrus | 51 | −21 | 15 | −4.434 | 24 |
| Disease Effect | Frontal Lobe | 6 | 54 | −3 | −3.771 | 54 |
FIGURE 4The APOE ε2/ε3 carriers groups had a slight decreased standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) of FDG-PET in the Frontal Lobe compared to the APOE ε3/ε3 homozygote groups. The statistical threshold was set at p < 0.01 with a cluster-level of p < 0.05 (two-tailed, GRF corrected).