Beach, Thomas G.

Abstract Our understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) has grown exponentially, thanks to significant investments by the National Institute on Aging (NIA). This article celebrates the 40th anniversary of the NIA's Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers, highlighting the pivotal role of neuropathology as the bedrock for neurodegeneration research. Neuropathology has championed the key principles of proteinopathy, selective vulnerability, and stereotypic spread. Furthermore, neuropathologic studies advanced our understanding of ADRD prevalence, heterogeneity, clinical–pathological correlations, and genetic underpinnings, spurring biomarker development for target engagement and disease monitoring. Disease‐modifying therapies for AD were inspired and informed by neuropathology. The neuropathology community is poised to refine diagnostics, leveraging digital pathology and integrating genetics and pathomics to enhance subtyping for novel precision medicine approaches. Despite some common misconceptions and logistical challenges, neuropathology continues to be a critical component of the ADRD research infrastructure, serving as a key bridge between allied basic and clinical sciences. Highlights We celebrate 40 years of NIA‐funded ADRCs and their contributions through neuropathology studies that have significantly advanced our understanding and treatment of ADRD. Neuropathology uncovers principles of neurodegenerative disease: proteinopathy, selective vulnerability, and stereotypic spread, informing diagnostics and therapies. Development of AD biomarkers with reference to neuropathology enhances accuracy in diagnosis and monitoring, paving the way for targeted disease‐modifying therapies. Integration of digital pathology, genetics, and novel tools in neurodegeneration research promises advanced precision medicine approaches and refined diagnostics. Misconceptions and logistical challenges to neuropathological research are addressed to improve understanding and collaboration.

AbstractBackgroundAfrican Americans (AA) and Latin Americans (LA) are at a higher risk of developing AD compared to non‐Hispanic whites (NHW) but are traditionally underrepresented in AD research. The disproportionate risk is likely multifactorial including differences in co‐morbidities and structural and social determinants of health (SSDoH). AD risk is thought to result from multiple genetic and environmental factors, and their interactions (GxE). However, the molecular mechanisms underlying these interactions are largely unknown. The best‐established genetic risk factor for AD is APOE‐ε4, while APOE‐ε2 is protective. Environmental factors, such as living in neighborhoods with greater socioeconomic disadvantage, have been associated with greater AD neuropathology and worse cognitive function. Studying the potential modifying role of neighborhood disadvantage regarding associations of APOE‐ε4 and APOE‐ε2 with AD risk using a socioeconomic metric like the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) in a multiethnic post‐mortem cohort could offer valuable insights for precision medicine.MethodWe analyzed a post‐mortem cohort of 421 multi‐ethnic donors (NHW: N = 234, AD = 70, non‐AD = 164; LA: N = 145, AD = 102, non‐AD = 43; AA: N = 42, AD = 24, non‐AD = 18), from Mayo Clinic Florida, Banner Sun Health Research Institute, and the University of Florida Brain Banks as part of the AMP AD Diversity initiative. This study used the same neuropathological criteria to categorize AD vs. non‐AD as in the MayoRNAseq study (syn5550404). ADI from the Neighborhood Atlas® was obtained from de‐identified addresses. Associations of APOE‐ε4, APOE‐ε2, and ADI with AD risk were examined using logistic regression models adjusted for age‐at‐death, sex, and ethnic group; interactions of APOE genotype with ADI were also assessed.ResultAPOE‐ε4 and APOE‐ε2 showed a significant association with AD diagnosis (APOE‐ε4combined cohort OR = 3.23, P = 3.14E‐08; APOE‐ε2combined cohort OR = 0.30, P = 0.003). However, contrary to prior findings, our study found no association between ADI and AD diagnosis [OR = 1.023 (per each 10 unit increase in ADI), P = 0.629]. No significant interactions of ADI with APOE‐ε4 or APOE‐ε2 regarding association with AD diagnosis were identified (P = 0.083, P = 0.781).ConclusionThis is the first study evaluating the potential interaction of neighborhood disadvantage with APOE on AD risk in a multi‐ethnic autopsy cohort. However, these findings require further investigation in larger, more well‐powered cohorts for validation.

AbstractBackgroundMild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a pre‐dementia state where impaired cognitive domains (memory, executive, visuospatial processing, language) may predict underlying pathology, e.g. Alzheimer’s disease(AD), Lewy body (LB), and other. Delineating neuropathological heterogeneity in MCI and their associations with neuropsychological profiles are important in identifying individuals at risk of further deterioration. We aimed to characterize the neuropathological heterogeneity in cases with a diagnosis of MCI.MethodCases with a final consensus cognitive diagnosis of MCI (n = 128) prior to death were selected from the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative disorders (AZSAND). Groups were divided into amnestic (aMCI) and non‐amnestic MCI (naMCI), single and multi‐domain impairment, and specific domain impairment (executive, language, visuospatial) was explored. Presence and severity of neuropathology including AD, LB, cerebral white matter rarefaction (CWMR), cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), cerebral infarcts and microinfarcts (cortical and subcortical), TAR DNA‐binding protein 43 (TDP‐43), and apolipoprotein E (ApoE) status were compared between MCI subtypes.ResultThe number of cases meeting neuropathological criteria for AD was not different between aMCI (36.4%) and naMCI (22.6%) while co‐existent PD was less frequent in aMCI (19.5% vs 38.7%). When compared to naMCI (n = 31), the aMCI (n = 85) group had an older age of death (p = 0.001), less educational years (p = 0.04), a higher number of subcortical infarcts (p = 0.012), a higher regional density of neurofibrillary tangles (p = 0.027) and a lower density of LB (p = 0.015) in the temporal lobe, and CWMR in tended to be more severe in the frontal lobe (p = 0.052). Those with single domain aMCI had less CWMR (p = 0.001) compared to the multidomain. Within the naMCI group, those with single domain MCI had higher proportions of CAA (p = 0.042), and lower LB density (p = 0.019) compared to multidomain. CWMR was more severe (p = 0.026) inConclusionA high heterogeneity was observed between MCI subtypes. While AD pathology was similar between groups, regional anatomical differences were observed. Vascular pathology including subcortical infarcts, CWMR and CAA appear to be commonly associated with both aMCI and naMCI respectively while CWMR was associated with executive dysfunctions. CWMR, CAA and LBs appear to be more frequent in multidomain aMCI and naMCI respectively.

Identifying biomarkers that distinguish Parkinson's disease (PD) from normal control (NC) individuals has the potential to increase diagnostic sensitivity for the detection of early-stage PD. A previous proteomic study identified potential biomarkers in postmortem ventricular cerebrospinal fluid (V-CSF) from neuropathologically diagnosed PD subjects lacking Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology. In the present study, we assessed these biomarkers as well as p-tau 181 , Aβ42, and S100B by ELISA in PD (n = 43) and NC (n = 49) cases. The p-tau 181 /Aβ42 ratio and ApoA-1 showed statistically significant differences between groups. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that p-tau 181 /Aβ42 had a significant odds ratio: OR = 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–1.84), P = 0.006. Among the molecules investigated, intriguing correlations were observed that require further investigation. Our results suggest coexistent AD CSF biomarkers within the PD group notwithstanding that it was selected to minimize AD neuropathological lesions.