Heneka, Michael T.

Abstract The immune system is a key player in the onset and progression of neurodegenerative disorders. While brain resident immune cell‐mediated neuroinflammation and peripheral immune cell (eg, T cell) infiltration into the brain have been shown to significantly contribute to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology, the nature and extent of immune responses in the brain in the context of AD and related dementias (ADRD) remain unclear. Furthermore, the roles of the peripheral immune system in driving ADRD pathology remain incompletely elucidated. In March of 2023, the Alzheimer's Association convened the Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC), Advancements: Immunity, to discuss the roles of the immune system in ADRD. A wide range of topics were discussed, such as animal models that replicate human pathology, immune‐related biomarkers and clinical trials, and lessons from other fields describing immune responses in neurodegeneration. This manuscript presents highlights from the conference and outlines avenues for future research on the roles of immunity in neurodegenerative disorders. Highlights The immune system plays a central role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. The immune system exerts numerous effects throughout the brain on amyloid‐beta, tau, and other pathways. The 2023 AAIC, Advancements: Immunity, encouraged discussions and collaborations on understanding the role of the immune system.

Across multiancestry groups, we analyzed Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) associations in over 176,000 individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) versus controls. We demonstrate that the two diseases share the same protective association at the HLA locus. HLA-specific fine-mapping showed that hierarchical protective effects of HLA-DRB1 *04 subtypes best accounted for the association, strongest with HLA-DRB1 *04:04 and HLA-DRB1 *04:07, and intermediary with HLA-DRB1 *04:01 and HLA-DRB1 *04:03. The same signal was associated with decreased neurofibrillary tangles in postmortem brains and was associated with reduced tau levels in cerebrospinal fluid and to a lower extent with increased Aβ42. Protective HLA-DRB1 *04 subtypes strongly bound the aggregation-prone tau PHF6 sequence, however only when acetylated at a lysine (K311), a common posttranslational modification central to tau aggregation. An HLA-DRB1 *04-mediated adaptive immune response decreases PD and AD risks, potentially by acting against tau, offering the possibility of therapeutic avenues.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONAt the Alzheimer's Association's APOE and Immunity virtual conference, held in October 2021, leading neuroscience experts shared recent research advances on and inspiring insights into the various roles that both the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) and facets of immunity play in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.METHODSThe meeting brought together more than 1200 registered attendees from 62 different countries, representing the realms of academia and industry.RESULTSDuring the 4‐day meeting, presenters illuminated aspects of the cross‐talk between APOE and immunity, with a focus on the roles of microglia, triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2), and components of inflammation (e.g., tumor necrosis factor α [TNFα]).DISCUSSIONThis manuscript emphasizes the importance of diversity in current and future research and presents an integrated view of innate immune functions in Alzheimer's disease as well as related promising directions in drug development.

AbstractIntroductionMicrostructural alterations as assessed by diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) are key findings in both Alzheimer's disease (AD) and small vessel disease (SVD). We determined the contribution of each of these conditions to diffusion alterations.MethodsWe studied six samples (N = 365 participants) covering the spectrum of AD and SVD, including genetically defined samples. We calculated diffusion measures from DTI and free water imaging. Simple linear, multivariable random forest, and voxel‐based regressions were used to evaluate associations between AD biomarkers (amyloid beta, tau), SVD imaging markers, and diffusion measures.ResultsSVD markers were strongly associated with diffusion measures and showed a higher contribution than AD biomarkers in multivariable analysis across all memory clinic samples. Voxel‐wise analyses between tau and diffusion measures were not significant.DiscussionIn memory clinic patients, the effect of SVD on diffusion alterations largely exceeds the effect of AD, supporting the value of diffusion measures as markers of SVD.

BackgroundThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid β (Aβ)‐42, total‐tau (T‐tau), and phosphorylated‐tau (P‐tau) demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements between studies, and between and within laboratories. The Alzheimer's Association has initiated a global quality control program to estimate and monitor variability of measurements, quantify batch‐to‐batch assay variations, and identify sources of variability. In this article, we present the results from the first two rounds of the program.MethodsThe program is open for laboratories using commercially available kits for Aβ, T‐tau, or P‐tau. CSF samples (aliquots of pooled CSF) are sent for analysis several times a year from the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Mölndal campus of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Each round consists of three quality control samples.ResultsForty laboratories participated. Twenty‐six used INNOTEST enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay kits, 14 used Luminex xMAP with the INNO‐BIA AlzBio3 kit (both measure Aβ‐(1‐42), P‐tau(181P), and T‐tau), and 5 used Meso Scale Discovery with the Aβ triplex (AβN‐42, AβN‐40, and AβN‐38) or T‐tau kits. The total coefficients of variation between the laboratories were 13% to 36%. Five laboratories analyzed the samples six times on different occasions. Within‐laboratory precisions differed considerably between biomarkers within individual laboratories.ConclusionsMeasurements of CSF AD biomarkers show large between‐laboratory variability, likely caused by factors related to analytical procedures and the analytical kits. Standardization of laboratory procedures and efforts by kit vendors to increase kit performance might lower variability, and will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers.