Bennett, David A.

The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 potentially exposed more than 400,000 responders, workers, and residents to psychological and physical stressors, and numerous hazardous pollutants. In 2011, the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP) was mandated to monitor and treat persons with 9/11-related adverse health conditions and conduct research on physical and mental health conditions related to the attacks. Emerging evidence suggests that persons exposed to 9/11 may be at increased risk of developing mild cognitive impairment. To investigate further, the WTCHP convened a scientific workshop that examined the natural history of cognitive aging and impairment, biomarkers in the pathway of neurodegenerative diseases, the neuropathological changes associated with hazardous exposures, and the evidence of cognitive decline and impairment in the 9/11-exposed population. Invited participants included scientists actively involved in health-effects research of 9/11-exposed persons and other at-risk populations. Attendees shared relevant research results from their respective programs and discussed several options for enhancements to research and surveillance activities, including the development of a multi-institutional collaborative research network. The goal of this report is to outline the meeting’s agenda and provide an overview of the presentation materials and group discussion.

AbstractBackgroundOur understanding of the biological changes in the brain associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology and cognitive impairment remains incomplete. Unbiased discovery proteomic analysis of AD brain can help to increase our understanding of these changes.MethodWe analyzed dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, precuneus, and temporal cortex of control, asymptomatic AD, and AD brains from multiple different centers by label‐free quantitative mass spectrometry and weighted protein co‐expression analysis to obtain a consensus protein co‐expression network of AD brain. We also analyzed cerebrospinal fluid to investigate potential biomarkers related to this network.ResultThe network consisted of 13 protein co‐expression modules. Six of these modules correlated with amyloid‐β plaque burden, tau neurofibrillary tangle burden, cognitive function, and clinical functional status, and were altered in asymptomatic AD, AD, or in both disease states. These six modules reflected synaptic, mitochondrial, sugar metabolism, extracellular matrix, cytoskeletal, and RNA binding/splicing biological functions. The identified protein network modules were preserved in a community‐based cohort analyzed by a different quantitative mass spectrometry approach. They were also preserved in temporal lobe and precuneus brain regions. Some of the modules were influenced by aging, and showed changes in other neurodegenerative diseases such as frontotemporal dementia and corticobasal degeneration. The module most strongly associated with AD pathology and cognitive impairment was the sugar metabolism module. This module was enriched in AD genetic risk factors, and was also highly enriched in microglia and astrocyte protein markers associated with an anti‐inflammatory state, suggesting that the biological functions it represents may serve a protective role in AD. Proteins from the sugar metabolism module were increased in cerebrospinal fluid from asymptomatic AD and AD cases, highlighting their potential as biomarkers of the altered brain network.ConclusionIn this study of >2000 brains and nearly 400 cerebrospinal fluid samples by quantitative proteomics, we identify proteins and biological processes in AD brain that may serve as therapeutic targets and fluid biomarkers for the disease.

Abstract In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six‐stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker‐based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker‐based research should not be considered a template for all research into age‐related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β‐amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.