Petersen, Ronald C.

AbstractIntroductionMedial temporal lobe (MTL) uptake on tau–positron emission tomography (PET) is seen not only in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia but also in the aging population. The relationship of these findings to the development of AD dementia needs to be better understood.MethodsTau‐PET with AV‐1451 was performed on 576 cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants aged 50–94 years. The number of CUs with and without abnormal MTL regions and those with or without extra‐MTL abnormalities was determined. Left and right regions were compared within each subject.ResultsOf CUs, 58% (334/576) had abnormal tau‐PET findings. MTL abnormalities were present in 41% (238/576) of subjects.DiscussionMTL tau‐PET signal is often associated with abnormal extra‐MTL tau‐PET signal in CU participants and may represent neurofibrillary tangle development that could identify participants most likely to develop AD dementia. Tau‐PET signal exclusively outside of the MTL is seen in 17% of CU participants and could be the initial findings in participants in different AD dementia pathways. Significant (P < .001) differences in tau–standardized uptake value ratio between sides were noted in 26 of 41 examined brain regions implicating further study of side‐specific deficits.

AbstractThe relationship between clinicopathologic diagnosis and 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT in 18 patients with dementia (12 with Lewy body disease) from one center in the United States was assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of abnormal 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT with reduced striatal uptake on visual inspection for predicting Lewy body disease were 91.7% and 83.3%, respectively. The mean calculated putamen to occipital ratio (mPOR) based on regions of interest was significantly reduced in Lewy body disease compared to non‐Lewy body disease cases (P = 0.002). In this study, abnormal 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT was strongly associated with underlying Lewy body disease pathology, supporting the utility of 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT in the clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies.

ObjectiveTo use a cluster analysis of [18F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET data to determine how subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD) vary in the relative involvement of the entorhinal cortex and neocortex, and determine whether relative involvement of these two regions can help explain variability in age and clinical phenotype in AD.MethodsWe calculated [18F]AV‐1451 uptake in entorhinal cortex and neocortex in 62 amyloid‐positive AD patients (39 typical and 23 atypical presentation). tau‐PET (positron emission tomography) values were normalized to the cerebellum to create standard uptake value ratios (SUVRs). tau‐PET SUVRs were log‐transformed and clustered blinded to clinical information into three groups using K‐median cluster analysis. Demographics, clinical phenotype, cognitive performance, and apolipoprotein e4 frequency were compared across clusters.ResultsThe cluster analysis identified a cluster with low entorhinal and cortical uptake (ELo/CLo), one with low entorhinal but high cortical uptake (ELo/CHi), and one with high cortical and entorhinal uptake (EHi/CHi). Clinical phenotype differed across clusters, with typical AD most commonly observed in the ELo/CLo and EHi/CHi clusters, and atypical AD most commonly observed in the ELo/CHi cluster. The ELo/CLo cluster had an older age at PET and onset than the other clusters. Apolipoprotein e4 frequency was lower in the ELo/CHi cluster. The EHi/CHi cluster had the worst memory impairment, whereas the ELo/CHi cluster had the worst impairment in nonmemory domains.InterpretationThis study demonstrates considerable variability in [18F]AV‐1451 tau‐PET uptake in AD, but shows that a straightforward clustering based on entorhinal and cortical uptake maps well onto age and clinical presentation in AD. Ann Neurol 2018 Ann Neurol 2018;83:248–257

Background: The human sulfatase 1 (SULF1) and sulfatase 2 (SULF2) genes modulate cell signaling and homeostasis in many tissues. Gene expression analyses have implicated SULF2 in disease pathogenesis, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but changes in brain SULF2 expression have not been directly established. Objective: To investigate the expression of SULF1 and SULF2 in brain tissues from AD cases and cognitively normal controls. Methods: Autopsy tissue from AD cases ( n = 20) and age-and gender-matched cognitively normal controls ( n = 20) were identified from the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Registry neuropathology database. Tissue slides were stained for SULF1 and SULF2 protein expression in the hippocampus and frontal lobe and an expression score computed from the proportion of cells stained and the intensity of staining (range 0 [no expression] to 9 [marked expression]). Results: SULF2 expression was reduced in AD cases. Compared to cognitively normal controls, SULF2 expression in AD cases was significantly decreased in the hippocampal Cornu Ammonis (CA) (mean score of 6.5 in cases versus 8.3 in controls; p = 0.003), in the gray matter of the parahippocampal gyrus (5.6 in cases versus 7.6 in controls; p = 0.003), and in the frontal lobe gray matter (5.4 in cases versus 7.4 in controls; p = 0.002). There was no difference in SULF1 expression in the hippocampus or frontal lobe of AD cases and controls. As expected there were no differences in SULF1 or SULF2 expression in white matter in AD cases compared to cognitively normal controls. Conclusion: Decreased SULF2 in specific regions of the brain occurs in AD.