Dementia risk and dynamic response to exercise: A non-randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise may support brain health and cognition over the course of typical aging. The goal of this nonrandomized clinical trial was to examine the effect of an acute bout of aerobic exercise on brain blood flow and blood neurotrophic factors associated with exercise response and brain function in older adults with and without possession of the Apolipoprotein epsilon 4 (APOE4) allele, a genetic risk factor for developing Alzheimer's. We hypothesized that older adult APOE4 carriers would have lower cerebral blood flow regulation and would demonstrate blunted neurotrophic response to exercise compared to noncarriers.
METHODS: Sixty-two older adults (73±5 years old, 41 female [67%]) consented to this prospectively enrolling clinical trial, utilizing a single arm, single visit, experimental design, with post-hoc assessment of difference in outcomes based on APOE4 carriership. All participants completed a single 15-minute bout of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. The primary outcome measure was change in cortical gray matter cerebral blood flow in cortical gray matter measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) arterial spin labeling (ASL), defined as the total perfusion (area under the curve, AUC) following exercise. Secondary outcomes were changes in blood neurotrophin concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).
RESULTS: Genotyping failed in one individual (n = 23 APOE4 carriers and n = 38 APOE4 non-carriers) and two participants could not complete primary outcome testing. Cerebral blood flow AUC increased immediately following exercise, regardless of APOE4 carrier status. In an exploratory regional analyses, we found that cerebral blood flow increased in hippocampal brain regions, while showing no change in cerebellum across both groups. Among high inter-individual variability, there were no significant changes in any of the 3 neurotrophic factors for either group immediately following exercise.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that both APOE4 carriers and non-carriers show similar effects of exercise-induced increases in cerebral blood flow and neurotrophic response to acute aerobic exercise. Our results provide further evidence that acute exercise-induced increases in cerebral blood flow may be regional specific, and that exercise-induced neurotrophin release may show a differential effect in the aging cardiovascular system. Results from this study provide an initial characterization of the acute brain blood flow and neurotrophin responses to a bout of exercise in older adults with and without this known risk allele for cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dementia Risk and Dynamic Response to Exercise (DYNAMIC); Identifier: NCT04009629.

Introduction

Many diseases of the brain and cardiovascular system share common risk factors such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and genetics [1-4]. High comorbidity of cognitive decline and cardiovascular disease has focused much research on the role of cardio- and cerebrovascular health in reducing dementia risk [5, 6]. Aerobic exercise–characterized as sustained, rhythmic physical activity using large muscle groups—is a well-known cardiovascular intervention [7] that shows positive effects on brain health [8], including improved cognitive outcomes [9-13], greater brain volume and cortical thickness [14-16], and lower risk of dementia [17, 18]. Randomized control trials (RCTs) involving aerobic exercise have consistently demonstrated benefits to cognition and structural brain integrity, including increased volume of the whole brain and the hippocampus, a critical neural substrate for memory formation and retention that is commonly compromised with aging [9, 12, 19–21]. Increased cerebral blood flow (CBF) and exposure to blood-based trophic and hormonal factors may be key factors amongst many potential mechanisms by which aerobic exercise exerts neuroprotective and therapeutic effects on brain health. While the positive effects of long-term aerobic exercise on brain health are well established, the acute response of CBF and blood-based neurotrophins to a bout of aerobic exercise by older adults remains insufficiently characterized [22-25].

Possession of the Apolipoprotein E allele 4 (APOE4), the strongest known genetic risk factor for sporaidc Alzheimer’s disease (AD), may influence the relationship between cardiovascular and brain health. Apolipoprotein E plays an integral role in maintenance of cerebrovascular health and may interact with aging processes to mediate benefits of long-term exercise interventions on brain health [26, 27]. Individuals who carry the APOE4 isoform demonstrate poor brain vascular function with aging compared to their age-matched counterparts [2–4, 28–30], particularly in regions associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) [31, 32]. Yet, whether older individuals who possess APOE4 show differential CBF responses to an acute bout of exercise has not been investigated. Understanding acute physiologic responses to is important as any benefits of exercise will necessarily result from the cumulative effects of these brief regular exercise exposures.

To further characterize potential intermediary mechanisms between exercise and brain health we designed the present study to assess the immediate CBF response to a single bout of acute exercise. Assessing acute exercise has the benefit of providing information on the immediate changes are related to component parts of a habitual exercise program. Our driving premise was that CBF would be a biomarker of cerebrovascular change. Specifically, we hypothesized that APOE4 carriers would have lower CBF response immediately following exercise. As ancillary outcomes we also assessed vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), since they have been postulated as possible neuroprotective and therapeutic mediators of exercise effects on the brain [21, 33].

Methods

The study was designed as a single arm, single visit, experimental study, with post-hoc assessment of difference based on APOE4 carriership. No randomization was used in this study. The protocol was approved by the University of Kansas Medical Center Institutional Review Board. All participants provided written informed consent consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was registered as a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04009629) following National Institutes of Health guidance. Additional information for study design and reporting may be found in S1 Protocol and S1 Checklist.

Sixty-two English speaking adults, aged 65–85, were enrolled in the study between October 25, 2019 and October 28, 2021. To our knowledge, there have been no peer-reviewed reports of genotype-based CBF differences in response to acute exercise. Thus, we conservatively chose an estimated effect size (d = 0.85) based on feasibility and prior cross-sectional data [31, 34]. We calculated that enrolling a total of 60 participants would provide ~90% power with a Type 1 error rate of 5% to detect APOE4-related differences in CBF.

Exclusion criteria were musculoskeletal or cardiopulmonary restrictions from a physician; contraindications to MRI; anti-coagulant use; previous diagnosis of a cognitive disorder or a neurological or psychiatric condition that could result in cognitive impairment; high exercise risk classification by American College of Sports Medicine criteria unless cleared by a physician. Fig 1 provides a CONSORT-style diagram of enrollment. All testing was performed at the University of Kanas Medical Center. Participants were compensated $100 for their time.

Fig 1

CONSORT enrollment flow.

We have previously described our protocol for the present study and detailed method for measuring CBF before and after a single, 15-minute acute bout of moderate intensity aerobic exercise on a cycle ergometer. Intensity was titrated to 45–55% of heart rate reserve, based on age-predicted heart rate maximum [35]. The full trial protocol is described in White et al. [35].

The primary outcome was cortical gray matter cerebral blood flow (CBF) response, quantified by area under the curve post-exercise. Neurotrophic factor concentration change from pre- to post-exercise and regional CBF response were identified as an ancillary outcome of interest a priori. There were no changes to trial primary outcome after the trial commenced.

Arterial spin labeling via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was chosen to capture CBF due to its advantage in spatial localization and ability to yield a physiologically quantifiable outcome [36]. For CBF measurement, participant underwent two 3D GRASE pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) sequences [37-40], yielding 11 minutes and 36 seconds of pre-exercise CBF data. All pCASL sequences were collected with the same with background suppressed 3D GRASE protocol (TE/TR = 22.4/4300 ms, FOV = 300 × 300 × 120 mm3, matrix = 96 × 66 × 48, Post-labeling delay = 2s, 4-segmented acquisition without partial Fourier transform reconstruction, readout duration = 23.1 ms, total scan time 5:48, 2 M0 images). The two pre-exercise pCASL sequences were followed by a T1-weighted, 3D magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) structural scan (TR/TE  =  2300/2.95 ms, inversion time (TI)  =  900 ms, flip angle  =  9 deg, FOV  =  253 × 270 mm, matrix  =  240 × 256 voxels, voxel in-plane resolution  =  1.05 × 1.05 mm2, slice thickness  =  1.2 mm, 176 sagittal slices, in-plane acceleration factor  =  2, acquisition time  =  5:09). Blood pressure was monitored during the MRI via a continuous blood pressure monitoring cuff (Caretaker 4, Caretaker Medical N.A. caretakermedical.net).

Following the MRI, in an adjacent room, a flexible intravenous catheter was placed, and 10 mL of blood was collected in tubes containing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and a separate 3mL sample in acid citrate dextrose for genotyping. Participants then sat on a cycle ergometer and, after a 5-minute warm-up, exercised for 15 minutes at a moderate intensity, 45–55% of heart rate reserve, on a cycle ergometer. Cycle resistance was titrated for the entire 15 minutes to maintain intensity. During a cooldown period, an additional 10mL of blood was drawn. Then participants were then escorted back to the MRI immediately for 4 consecutive pCASL sequences, identical to the pre-exercise sequences. Finally, an additional 10mL of blood was drawn.

Neuroimage processing

CBF was calculated using a process adapted from the Laboratory of Functional MRI Technology CBF Preprocess and Quantify packages for CBF calculation (loft-lab.org, ver. February 2019). We created individualized gray matter regions of interest (whole brain, hippocampus, and cerebellum as a reference region) for each participant using the Statistical Parametric Mapping CAT12 (neuro.uni-jena.de/cat, r1059 2016-10-28) package for anatomical segmentation [41]. We motion corrected labeled and control pCASL images separately for each sequence, realigning each image to the first peer image following M0 image acquisition. CBF was calculated with surround subtraction of each label/control pair without biopolar gradients [42] producing a timeseries of 9 subtraction images. This was done for each pCASL sequence, or 18 pre-exercise and 36 post-exercise CBF estimates. Subtraction images were then coregistered to the anatomical image and smoothed using a 6mm full-width, half maximum Gaussian window [37]. CBF area under the curve (AUC), our primary outcome measure, was calculated as the sum of the mean CBF estimate in each region of interest over the duration of acquisition (mL*100g tissue-1).

Blood specimen processing

Immediately after each blood collection timepoint, plasma was centrifuged at 1500 relative centrifugal field (g) (2800 RPM) at 4°C for 10 minutes. Platelet-rich plasma was then centrifuged in four, 1.5mL aliquots at 1700g (4500 RPM) at 4°C for 15 minutes. The resulting platelet-poor plasma was separated from the pellet and snap frozen in liquid nitrogen until stored at -80°C at the end of the visit. Concentrations of IGF-1 (Alpco Diagnostics), VEGF (R&D Systems), and BNDF (R&D systems) were measured in plasma using enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. We then computed a change score between pre-exercise and immediate post-exercise levels for each analyte.

Whole blood was drawn and stored frozen at -80°C prior to genetic analyses using a Taqman single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) allelic discrimination assay (ThermoFisher) to determine APOE genotype. Taqman probes were used to determine APOE4, APOE3, and APOE2 alleles to the two APOE-defining SNPs, rs429358 (C_3084793_20) and rs7412 (C_904973_10). Individuals were classified as APOE4 carrier in the presence of 1 or 2 APOE4 alleles (e.g. E3/E4, E4/E4), and remaining individuals were grouped as non-carriers. Blood specimen processing was performed by a trained phlebotomist. Subsequent analyses were performed by trained staff, overseen by an experienced investigator (JKM).

Statistical analyses

Demographic and intervention differences between APOE4 carriage groups were explored with Welch Two Sample t-test or Fisher’s Exact Test as appropriate. Our a priori planned analysis of the primary CBF outcome measure was an independent t-test comparison of CBF AUC between APOE4 carriage groups. Our secondary outcomes were tested via independent t-test comparison of change in blood-based neurotrophic marker levels (post-exercise minus pre-exercise concentration) between e4carriage groups. We also tested an exploratory linear mixed effects model with a random intercept coefficient for each participant and a covariance structure of compound symmetry. P-values were obtained by likelihood ratio tests of the full model against the model without the interaction or factor in question. For our exploratory analyses, we compared change in the AUC of the 2 pre-exercise ASL sequences and the AUC of the final 2 post-exercise ASL sequences across 3 regions of interest (cortex, cerebellum, hippocampus). Age and gender were explored as influential covariates.

Data were captured using REDCap [9]. The analyses for this project were performed using R (base and lme4 packages) [43, 44]. For all analyses p-values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Participants

A total of 112 individuals were assessed for study eligibility from October 2019 through October 2021. Reasons for exclusion are presented in Fig 1. Enrollment was expanded to 62 in August ‘21 to increase representation of men and individuals identifying with a racial or ethnic minoritized community. Genotyping of one individual failed, and this person was excluded from analysis. One person withdrew during exercise due to an adverse event, one refused post-exercise MRI, and post-exercise blood collection failed on 2 participants, leaving sample sizes of 59 and 58 for primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.

Self-reported racial and Hispanic/Latino ethnic identity of enrollees was recorded in compliance with National Institute of Health guidance, and approximately reflected the diversity of older adults in the Kansas City region in the 2020 census. We also identified rural residence [45] and calculated the Area Deprivation Index, a geospatial socio-economic disadvantage metric, related to health and dementia risk, to enrich characterization of our participants [46]. We found no evidence of significant differences between carriers and non-carriers in standard demographic measures (p> = 0.3, Table 1).

Table 1

Demographics.

Characteristic	Overall, N = 611	Non-carrier, N = 381	APOE4 Carrier, N = 231	p-value2
Age	72.8 (5.2)	73.3 (5.2)	72.1 (5.1)	0.4
Gender				0.3
Men	20 (33%)	10 (26%)	10 (43%)
Women	41 (67%)	28 (74%)	13 (57%)
Non-Binary	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Race				>0.9
Asian	1 (1.6%)	1 (2.6%)	0 (0%)
Black or African American	6 (9.8%)	4 (11%)	2 (8.7%)
White	54 (89%)	33 (87%)	21 (91%)
Ethnicity				>0.9
Non-Hispanic or Latino	59 (97%)	37 (97%)	22 (96%)
Hispanic or Latino	2 (3.3%)	1 (2.6%)	1 (4.3%)
Rural Residence				>0.9
Sub/Urban Resident	58 (97%)	37 (97%)	21 (95%)
Rural Resident	2 (3.3%)	1 (2.6%)	1 (4.5%)
Formal Education (yrs)	18.8 (2.8)	18.8 (2.4)	18.7 (3.3)	0.9
Area Deprivation Index (National %)	35.0 (2.0–96.0)	34.5 (7.0–91.0)	36.0 (2.0–96.0)	0.8

1Mean (standard deviation); n (%); Median (minimum-maximum)

2Welch Two Sample t-test; Fisher’s exact test

Primary outcome

In our pre-specified analysis, we found no evidence of an effect of APOE4 carriage on cortical gray matter post-exercise CBF AUC, see Table 2 (t = 1.3, p = 0.19, 95%CI [-53.9 256.1]). Fig 2 shows CBF AUC for our pre-specified whole gray matter cortical CBF AUC and cerebellar reference region.

Table 2

Pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes.

	Overall, N = 59	Non-carrier, N = 381	APOE4 Carrier, N = 21
Whole Gray Matter CBF AUC	1,503.6 (259.0)	1,539.6 (225.5)	1,438.5 (305.9)
Change in BDNF (pg/mL)	110.1 (616.5)	207.8 (705.9)	-65.6 (362.9)
Change in IGF1 (pg/mL)	4.5 (26.0)	5.7 (27.8)	2.3 (22.8)
Change in VEGF (pg/mL)	0.9 (10.9)	1.8 (11.1)	-1.0 (10.6)

Area under cerebral blood flow curve (CBF AUC). Pre to post-exercise change in brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF1) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). All values are presented as mean (standard deviation).

Fig 2

Cerebral blood flow area under the curve does not differ after exercise based on APOE4 carriage.

Total cerebral blood flow following exercise is plotted for both the primary region of interest, cortical gray matter, and the cerebellar gray matter reference region. Black bars denote APOE4 carriers. Gray bars denote APOE4 non-carriers. Error bars are standard deviation.

Secondary outcomes

Change in our blood-based markers from pre- to post-exercise, were not significant in any of the neurotrophic factors we explored (Table 2). Pre- to Post-exercise change in VEGF and IGF1 change did not approach significance (p>0.34). Change in BDNF post-exercise was increased but did not reach significance (p = 0.06).

Exploratory analyses

In our exploratory analyses, we first modeled a 3-way interaction of gray matter region (whole cortical, hippocampus, cerebellum), relative CBF AUC from baseline to post-exercise, and APOE4 carriage. CBF was calculated relative to the second, most stable, pre-exercise ASL acquisition. Gender, mean arterial pressure and age were included as a covariate based on preliminary modelling of influential demographic factors. Including the 3-way interaction significantly improved the model fit compared to the reduced model without the interaction of region, APOE4 carriage and CBF AUC (X2 = 15.1, p = 0.03). The presence of the significant 3-way interaction allowed us to perform post-hoc modeling on each region separately. We found that APOE4 carriers had higher post-exercise CBF AUC in the hippocampus (X2 = 3.8, p = 0.05), but not in the whole cortical gray matter (X2 = 2.3, p = 0.12), and not the cerebellum (X2 = 0.89, p = 0.35; S1 Fig). Across all regions, women had significantly higher CBF (p<0.001).

Adherence and safety

There was 1 adverse event, nausea, during exercise which resulted in termination of the visit and withdrawal of the participant (APOE4 carrier). One person elected not to complete the MRI post exercise (APOE4 carrier). All remaining participants were able to exercise within their identified target heart rate zone. There were no differences in the total power output in Watts, of the exercisers (p = 0.38). APOE4 carriers had a mean power output of 741 (standard deviation 304) and non-carriers had a mean power output of 664 (standard deviation 347).

Discussion

This is the first study to specifically assess cerebral blood flow (CBF) responses to exercise, comparing those with and without a common genetic Alzheimer’s risk factor, APOE4. Our pre-specified analyses found no differences in whole brain CBF post-exercise between APOE4 carriers and non-carriers. Likewise, changes in circulating neurotrophic factor levels immediately post-exercise were not different between carrier and noncarriers. The exploratory experimental approach of this study was designed to investigate the acute physiologic response to exercise, and not investigating exercise as a therapeutic intervention. As such, we explored the regional-specific changes in CBF in the hippocampus, given its differential benefit to exercise interventions and salience in cognitive change and dementia. In our exploratory analyses we found that APOE4 carriers display a greater increase in hippocampal region CBF in the acute response following exercise that were not present in whole brain or the cerebellar region, the latter serving as a reference region. These findings extend prior work showing similar hyperemic response in the hippocampus [47], and provide initial evidence that APOE4 carriers demonstrate greater hyperemia within the hippocampus than their non-carrier peers immediately after an acute exercise bout. Further, the heterogeneity of immediate post-exercise neurotrophin response across all older adults in the present study identify an area of future exploration for future research investigating acute physiologic responses to aerobic exercise. These findings provide an individualized framework for acute physiologic responses to an acute bout of aerobic exercise. Our results support a precision-medicine approach for the characterization and targeting of physiologic substrates with exercise interventions to benefit brain health.

Effect of APOE4 genotype on acute exercise-induced cerebral blood flow

Prior reports of hippocampal blood flow change in acute response to exercise have been inconsistent, with both increases and decreases reported [47-50]. Our findings are consistent with prior work demonstrating chronically increased cerebral blood flow in the hippocampi of young adults following an exercise intervention [51], and further highlight the APOE4 genotype-by-hippocampal interaction effect that should be considered in aging populations. Though the present study is one of the first investigations of the immediate acute effects of aerobic exercise in older adults, Alfini et al reported that short periods (i.e. 10 days) of sedentary behavior have a powerful reverse effect for reducing hippocampal CBF in highly active older adults [52]. The present results build up on these previous findings, together suggesting that hippocampal brain structures in older adults of this known risk allele are highly sensitive to changes in physical activity behaviors. Importantly, our findings provide a foundation for an individualized framework and brain region-specific analyses when studying the effects of exercise on cerebral blood flow. This may be a critical next step for linking cognitive maintenance to exercise effects, as prior work has failed to demonstrate a direct relationship between proxies of cerebral blood flow (transcranial Doppler) and cognition [53].

Neurotrophin factors show no change immediately following acute aerobic exercise in older adults

In contrast to previous reports in neurotypical young adults, we observed no exercise-induced change in blood neurotrophin concentration in older adults in the present study, regardless of APOE4 carrier status. This finding was surprising given that previous studies in younger adults report robust increases in these neurotrophic factors, IGF1, VEGF, and BDNF among others [20, 54–57]. Exercise-induced increases in neurotrophic factors have been associated with neurogenesis and angiogenesis in rodent models and are thought to explain brain health and cognitive benefits of exercise interventions [51, 58, 59]. However, in almost all cases, CBF and neurotrophins in human studies have been measured following an extended period of rest, without a challenging stimulus. Given that benefits would necessarily result from discrete, repeated exposures to an exercise intervention, measuring during inactivity potentially obscures important dynamic adaptations or capacities. Indeed, a challenging stimulus such as acute bout of aerobic exercise may be necessary to sufficiently study local and systemic effects on the brain [60, 61]. Methodological differences may also contribute to these differences. We chose to focus on platelet poor plasma, as neurotrophins are released from platelets following freeze-thaw cycles [62]. We believed this approach would give a more accurate representation on circulating, rather than stored, biomarker concentrations. Future work should consider that these biomarkers may have a delayed increase after exercise stimulus onset. Because APOE4 has been shown to influence release of BDNF and interact with VEGF, additional investigation is warranted [63-65]. Further, given there was no increase in neurotrophins between groups immediately following exercise, the greater change in hippocampal CBF immediately following exercise in older adult APOE4 carriers thus appears to be mechanistically driven by different factors than that observed in younger adults. Future investigations may test whether other physiologic factors (e.g. blood lactate) that may drive cerebral perfusion responses, and may further explain the specificity of such responses in hippocampal brain regions.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, we did not identify CBF change in our pre-specified primary outcome. At the time of inception, National Institute of Health guidance classified all exercise experimental designs as clinical trials. Following CONSORT guidance, we declared a priori outcomes of interest despite relative uncertainty in how to quantify our time-course data. But the effect size of APOE4-related differences in our pre-specified primary outcome was insufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, we feel justified in presenting our alternative analysis. Second, our groups are unbalanced. Though we made significant efforts to over-represent APOE4 carriers [35], our final sample approximates the distribution of the E4 in the US population. Given the advantage of high spatial resolution and sensitivity to cerebral perfusion changes, the present study utilized a MR imaging method to quantify cerebral blood flow. This method limits our ability to interpret CBF changes during the exercise bout that may have influenced immediate post-exercise CBF changes. Though this MR imaging method is currently regarded as the most accurate and precise method to quantify cerebral blood flow, the CBF measurements may be sensitive to factors such as day-to-day variability and circadian cycle [66]. As we have previously reported, the recovery time course for CBF appears to be relatively independent of blood pressure changes [35]. However, future work should emphasize accurate measurement of blood pressure, respiratory rate, and heart rate during the exercise bout to test the effect of blood pressure changes on CBF. Given the strong link between cardiovascular health and cognition with aging, our exclusion of older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia could have biased our sample towards individuals with higher vascular health than the typical older adult population. Finally, though our sample demonstrates racial and socioeconomic diversity, both inclusion criteria that limited the enrollment of individuals with severe cardiovascular disease and the underrepresentation of other racial identities, men, and additional sources of diversity limit the broad generalizability of this work.

Conclusion

We conducted the first comparison of the effect of a common Alzheimer’s risk gene, APOE4, on post-exercise cerebral blood flow and common neurotrophic changes following moderate intensity aerobic exercise. Our method of characterizing cerebral blood flow recovery may provide new avenues for MRI quantification of perfusion change. By using this method, we extended prior work showing that the hippocampus experiences great post-exercise blood flow increases in older adult APOE4 carriers. Investigation of the key mechanisms by which aerobic exercise supports cognition and brain health will continue to have important implications for future work by optimizing prescribed exercise interventions and specifying appropriate outcomes of interest.

CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomized trial*.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Regional blood flow pre- and post-exercise.

The figure shows relative cerebral blood flow in three regions of interest. Pre- and post-exercise time frames are equivalent, ~12 minutes of arterial spin labeling data collection. The hippocampus demonstrated an increase in post-exercise cerebral blood flow over pre-exercise in APOE4 carriers only (p = 0.05). The white bar is pre-exercise for APOE4 non-carriers. The light gray bar is post-exercise for APOE4 non-carriers. The dark graybar is pre-exercise for APOE4 carriers. The black bar is post-exercise for APOE4 carriers. Error bars are standard deviation. Cerebral blood flow is shown in percentage of the second PCASL acquisition before exercise.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Dynamic arterial measurement in cerebrum (DYNAMIC).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

5 May 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, 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

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

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This study was funded by grants from the national institutes of health R21 AG061548, P30 AG072973 and P30 AG035982, and the Leo and Anne Albert Charitable Trust. The Hoglund Biomedical Imaging Center is supported by a generous gift from Forrest and Sally Hoglund and funding from the National Institutes of Health including S10 RR29577, and UL1 TR002366."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Funding section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This study was funded by grants from the national institutes of health R21061548 (EDV), P30 AG072973 (EDV, JKM, RAH, RJL, JM, SAB), and the Leo and Anne Albert Charitable Trust. (EDV)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Partly

**********

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: A non-randomized clinical trial was conducted which aimed to examine the effect of aerobic exercise on brain blood flow and blood neurotrophic factors in older adults with and without the APOE4 allele. Cerebral blood flow AUC increased immediately after exercising regardless of APOE4 allele status. No significant changes were observed in the neurotrophic factors for either group immediately following exercise.

Minor revisions:

1- Abstract: In addition to the count, include the percentage female.

2- Line 193: Clarify if the t-tests for comparing pre- to post-exercise change were paired t-test.

3- Line 195: State the underlying covariance structure used in the linear mixed effects model and the criteria for selecting it.

4- Specify the level of significance. For instance, add the following statement, filling in the value for x.xx. P-values less than x.xx were considered statistically significant.

5- Use consistent notation for standard deviation. The standard notation is SD. Spell out the abbreviation at its first use.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors in term of novelty this is a new study but kindly see the attached file and see the required modifications in the comments and try to do it as mentioned for the soundness of your paper to be published

**********

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: No

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: DYNAMIC_Primary_20220308.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jun 2022

We appreciate the timely and thoughtful review of our manuscript, Dementia Risk and Dynamic Response to Exercise: A Non-randomized Clinical Trial, provided by the reviewers. We have carefully considered each critique and provided our response below. To assist reviewers, in most cases we have provided the critique numbered, our response in plain text, and the revision to the manuscript “quoted”.

Reviewer #1

Minor revisions:

1- Abstract: In addition to the count, include the percentage female.

We have added the percentage female to the abstract

“Methods: Sixty-two older adults (73±5 years old, 41 female [67%])…”

2- Line 193: Clarify if the t-tests for comparing pre- to post-exercise change were paired t-test.

We apologize for the lack of clarity. We performed independent t-tests to compare APOE4 carrier and non-carrier groups. The measures of interest were 1) the post-exercise area under the curve, and 2) the pre-to-post exercise change [change measure] in neurotrophin concentration. We have revised our language for improved clarity.

“Our a priori planned analysis of the primary CBF outcome measure was an independent t-test comparison of CBF AUC between APOE4 carriage groups, assuming unequal variance. Our secondary outcomes were tested via independent t-test comparison of change in blood-based neurotrophic marker levels (post-exercise minus pre-exercise concentration) between e4carriage groups.”

3- Line 195: State the underlying covariance structure used in the linear mixed effects model and the criteria for selecting it.

Since we fit a linear mixed effects model with a random intercept, the resulting covariance structure for our observations is compound symmetry. We have stated this in the text at the specified location.

4- Specify the level of significance. For instance, add the following statement, filling in the value for x.xx. P-values less than x.xx were considered statistically significant.

Thank you for identifying this oversight. We have clarified our a priori defined alpha.

“For all analyses we set alpha = 0.05.”

5- Use consistent notation for standard deviation. The standard notation is SD. Spell out the abbreviation at its first use.

We have corrected the use of “SD” to “standard deviation”. No abbreviation is necessary in the manuscript as it is only a handfull of times in the footnotes of tables or text.

Reviewer #2

1. Choose a more descriptive short title.

We have revised the Short Title.

“Short Title: Cerebral blood flow response to exercise”

2. Apolipoprotein E, first illustrate the abbreviation then mention it.

This has been corrected.

3. The results of previous study should not be mentioned in abstract section it should be in the discussion

Reference to prior studies have been removed from the abstract Conclusions section

“Results from this study provide an initial characterization of the acute brain blood flow and neurotrophin responses to a bout of exercise in older adults with and without this known risk allele for cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease.”

4. Where is the key words

Keywords were entered into the PLOS One submission management system. We have added them to the manuscript.

“Keywords: cerebral blood flow; aerobic exercise; Alzheimer's disease; perfusion”

5. Explain the rationale of the study. Please delete information unrelated to objective so that the section is short and sweet. Kindly focus on three elements of introduction.

a. What is known about the topic? (Background)

b. What is not known? (The research problem)

c. Why the study was done? (Justification)

Objective is not clear as mentioned above.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the rationale and objective of the present study. We have edited the Introduction section to improve the clarity and more concisely motivate our primary objectives. Of particular note, we have clarified our statement on the scientific knowledge gap and study premise.

“… whether older individuals who possess APOE4 show differential CBF responses to an acute bout of exercise has not been investigated. Understanding acute physiologic responses to is important as any benefits of exercise will necessarily result from the cumulative effects of these brief regular exercise exposures.

To further characterize potential intermediary mechanisms between exercise and brain health we designed the present study to assess the immediate CBF response to a single bout of acute exercise.”

6. Why did you choose MRI explain ? and add references to all measures

Thank you for prompting this addition. In addition to our detailed description and appropriate references for the PCASL analyses procedure, we have added the following statement and reference.

“Arterial spin labeling via magnetic resonance imaging was chosen to capture CBF due to its advantage in spatial localization and ability to yield a physiologically quantifiable outcome.(Borgovac et al, 2012)”

Since the time of original submission, we have come across new methodologies for image processing that may improve the quality of signal processing. To improve the rigor of this work, we have implemented these new analyses approaches in this manuscript revision, including the use of smoothing of the PCASL signal, and have updated citations, and CBF measures reported in the results and Table 2. The outcomes of our statistical analyses remained similar after implementation of the revised CBF analyses methodology and our interpretation of the findings is unchanged.

7. Mention who did blood specimen processing

We have added reference to who performed the blood specimen processing.

“Blood specimen processing was performed by a trained phlebotomist. Subsequent analyses were performed by trained staff, overseen by an experienced co-investigator (JKM).”

8. Results need to follow ABC (accuracy, brevity, clarity)

Kindly frame it along the following elements of results

i. Text to tell the story

ii. Tables to summarize the evidence

iii. Figures to highlight the main findings

In compliance with the study sponsors at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we have followed standard NIH Consolidated Standards of Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting clinical trial results: http://www.consort-statement.org/ .

. We have specified primary and secondary outcomes, provided tables to summarize the main evidence, andfigures to highlight the main findings.

9.This part [enrollment] should be placed in the method section not the results

We appreciate the perspective on the optimal location for the enrollment narrative. Throughout the manuscript we have followed standard CONSORT reporting. CONSORT defines the enrollment narrative as part of the Results (Items 13a/b and 14a/b on the CONSORT checklist).

10. Why didn’t you do intention to treat analysis for this drop out

We appreciate this concern, and after further consideration we feel that as only 3 people were missing for the primary outcome the number of remaining subjects included in our analysis is sufficient for estimation and statistical inference. Thus, we opted for this approach as opposed to risk inducing potential biases through imputation.

11. State the underlying covariance structure used in the linear mixed effects model and the criteria for selecting it.

Since we fit a linear mixed effects model with a random intercept, the resulting covariance structure for our observations is compound symmetry.

We have stated this in the methods section:

“We also tested an exploratory linear mixed effects model with a random intercept coefficient for each participant and a covariance structure of compound symmetry.”

12. Describe sources of potential bias and imprecision.

We agree that further elaboration on sources of potential bias and imprecision would improve the readers’ ability to carefully evaluate the results of the present study. We have edited the Discussion section to include the following limitations:

“…Given the advantage of high spatial resolution and sensitivity to cerebral perfusion changes, the present study utilized a MR imaging method to quantify cerebral blood flow. This method limits our ability to interpret CBF changes during the exercise bout that may have influenced immediate post-exercise CBF changes. Though this MR imaging method is currently regarded as the most accurate and precise method to quantify cerebral blood flow, the CBF measurements may be sensitive to factors such as day-to-day variability and circadian cycle (Heijtel et al 2014).”

“…Given the strong link between cardiovascular health and cognition with aging, our exclusion of older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia could have biased our sample towards individuals with higher vascular health than the typical older adult population.”

13. Generalizability of the trial findings need to be put.

We have included the following statement in the Limitations.

“Finally, though our sample demonstrates racial and socioeconomic diversity, both inclusion criteria that limited the enrollment of individuals with severe cardiovascular disease and the underrepresentation of other racial identities, men, and additional sources of diversity limit the broad generalizability of this work.”

Submitted filename: DYNAMIC_R1_R2R.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Jun 2022

10 Jun 2022

We appreciate the timely review of our first revision of our manuscript, Dementia Risk and Dynamic Response to Exercise: A Non-randomized Clinical Trial, provided by the reviewers. We have performed the final requested changes.

Reviewer #1: Minor revision:

The following statement is vague since the denotation of the lower case a is nonstandard. "For all analyses we set a= 0.05." Consider writing, "P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant."

We have changed the statement in the manuscript as requested.

Submitted filename: DYNAMIC_R2_R2R.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jun 2022

Dementia Risk and Dynamic Response to Exercise: A non-randomized clinical trial

PONE-D-22-06875R2

Dear Dr. Vidoni,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D.

Academic 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

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (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: No

**********

29 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-06875R2

Dementia Risk and Dynamic Response to Exercise: A Non-randomized Clinical Trial

Dear Dr. Vidoni:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE