Citations

AbstractBackgroundIndividuals meeting neuropathological criteria for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may manifest with atypical clinical syndromes. Past work showed that the neurobiological basis for these differences is related to specific neuronal vulnerabilities for tau pathology. For instance, amnestic cases have a higher burden of neurofibrillary changes in CA1. In contrast, logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) cases have a higher tau burden in the superior temporal gyrus (STG). Single‐cell technology enables investigations on the molecular basis of differential neuronal vulnerability in AD. Consequently, we delved into the factors that underlie this selective vulnerability by analyzing brain samples from individuals exclusively afflicted with AD but exhibiting diverse clinical manifestations.MethodsnRNA Sequencing using the Chromium Single Cell 3′ (10X Genomics, USA) on nuclei cells extracted from the CA1 sector and posterior STG of postmortem brain tissue of 48 individuals either meeting pathological criteria for AD (A3B3C3; 24 amnestic and eleven lvPPA) and healthy controls (A≤1B≤1C≤1; n = 13) (Table 1, Fig. 1A/B). Bioinformatics analyses were conducted using Cell Ranger and R software. Comparisons between cell subpopulations were conducted with the Wald statistical test, and p‐values < .05 were considered significant.ResultAfter quality control, we recovered more than 250k nuclei with a mean of 2,130 genes per nuclei. Upon cross‐sample alignment and t‐stochastic neighborhood embedding clustering (Fig. 1C), we found 21 excitatory neuronal subpopulations (Exc‐sub) in CA1 and 26 in STG, and 22 and 25 inhibitory neuronal subpopulations (Inh‐sub) in CA1 and STG, respectively; 16 astrocytes subpopulations in both areas and 20 microglia subpopulations in CA1 and 17 in STG (Fig. 2). One STG Exc‐sub, expressing CUX2 and LAMP5 genes showed vulnerability in lvPPA patients. Also, one STG Inh‐sub, expressing the ADARB2 gene, showed vulnerability for all AD patients.ConclusionOur preliminary study identified a vulnerable population of excitatory neurons related to lvPPA. We are conducting validation studies using quantitative pathology to confirm these results. Furthermore, analysis of a higher number of cases is ongoing and will continue to inform on factors associated with neuronal vulnerability.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONWhile Latin America (LatAm) is facing an increasing burden of dementia due to the rapid aging of the population, it remains underrepresented in dementia research, diagnostics, and care.METHODSIn 2023, the Alzheimer's Association hosted its eighth satellite symposium in Mexico, highlighting emerging dementia research, priorities, and challenges within LatAm.RESULTSSignificant initiatives in the region, including intracountry support, showcased their efforts in fostering national and international collaborations; genetic studies unveiled the unique genetic admixture in LatAm; researchers conducting emerging clinical trials discussed ongoing culturally specific interventions; and the urgent need to harmonize practices and studies, improve diagnosis and care, and use affordable biomarkers in the region was highlighted.DISCUSSIONThe myriad of topics discussed at the 2023 AAIC satellite symposium highlighted the growing research efforts in LatAm, providing valuable insights into dementia biology, genetics, epidemiology, treatment, and care.

Abstract The pathophysiological mechanisms driving disease progression of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and corresponding biomarkers are not fully understood. We leveraged aptamer-based proteomics (> 4,000 proteins) to identify dysregulated communities of co-expressed cerebrospinal fluid proteins in 116 adults carrying autosomal dominant FTLD mutations (C9orf72, GRN, MAPT) compared to 39 noncarrier controls. Network analysis identified 31 protein co-expression modules. Proteomic signatures of genetic FTLD clinical severity included increased abundance of RNA splicing (particularly in C9orf72 and GRN) and extracellular matrix (particularly in MAPT) modules, as well as decreased abundance of synaptic/neuronal and autophagy modules. The generalizability of genetic FTLD proteomic signatures was tested and confirmed in independent cohorts of 1) sporadic progressive supranuclear palsy-Richardson syndrome and 2) frontotemporal dementia spectrum syndromes. Network-based proteomics hold promise for identifying replicable molecular pathways in adults living with FTLD. ‘Hub’ proteins driving co-expression of affected modules warrant further attention as candidate biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

AbstractBackgroundApproximately 10‐25% of amnestic early‐onset dementia are negative for amyloid (Early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s Disease, EOnonAD). EOnonAD is a heterogenous group with various etiologies. In order to better understand the traits of EOnonAD, we clustered amnestic EOnonAD individuals according to cognitive patterns.MethodCognitive data of 62 EOnonAD individuals from the Longitudinal Early‐onset AD study (LEADS) were Z‐normalized to 91 intact individuals after adjusting for age, sex, and education. This led to domain‐averaged composite Z‐scores for memory, language, speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function. Cluster analysis using the Ward method on the residuals for the five composites was performed. We used Scree plot using the pseudo T‐squared to determine the optimal number of clusters. We compared demographics, imaging biomarkers (amyloid and tau PET SUVR, hippocampal volume), plasma (pTau231, Aß40, Aß42, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and neurofilament light chain (NfL)), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (Aß42/40, NfL, Neurogranin, Visinin‐like protein, YKL‐40, and Synaptosome Associated Protein 25) across the clusters after adjusting for age, sex, and education. We compared gray matter density of each EOnonAD cluster to controls (n = 84) using voxel‐wise multiple linear regressions in SPM12, adjusting for age, sex, education, and intracranial volume.ResultScree plot using the pseudo‐T‐squared suggested three clusters. Cluster 1 (38/62, 61.3%) was characterized by having the mildest cognitive impairment in all domains. Cluster 2 (19/62, 30.6%) was characterized by more severe memory and language impairment. Cluster 3 (5/62, 8.1%) was characterized by more severe impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function (Table 1). Cluster 3 showed significantly higher NfL for both plasma (Cluster 1 vs 3, p<0.001; Cluster 2 vs 3, p < 0.004) and CSF (Cluster 1 vs 3, p = 0.001). Other biomarkers did not show significant difference (Table 1). Only Cluster 3 showed significant atrophy in the bilateral fronto‐parietal areas at p<0.01, uncorrected (Figure 1).ConclusionWe identified heterogeneity in cognitive patterns among amnestic EOnonAD individuals. Cluster 1 had mildest cognitive impairment; Cluster 2 had predominant impairment in memory and language; and Cluster 3 had predominant impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function, with significant fronto‐parietal atrophy and high NfL indicating active neurodegeneration.

AbstractBackgroundIndividuals with neuropathological criteria for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may manifest with atypical clinical syndromes. Past work showed that the neurobiological basis for these differences is related to specific neuronal vulnerabilities for tau pathology. For instance, amnestic cases have a higher burden of neurofibrillary changes in CA1. In contrast, logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) cases have a higher tau burden in the superior temporal gyrus (STG). Single‐cell technology enables investigations on the molecular basis of differential neuronal vulnerability in AD. Therefore, we investigated factors underlying selective vulnerability using brain samples from individuals with pure AD with different clinical manifestations.MethodsnRNA Sequencing using the Chromium Single Cell 3′ (10X Genomics, USA) on nuclei cells extracted from the CA1 sector and posterior STG of postmortem brain tissue of 24 individuals either meeting pathological criteria for AD (A3B3C3; 12 amnestic and eight lvPPA) and healthy controls (A≤1B≤1C≤1; n = 4) (Table 1, Fig. 1A/B). Bioinformatics analyses were conducted using Cell Ranger and R software. Comparisons between cell subpopulations were conducted with Wald statistical test, and p‐values < .05 were considered significant.ResultAfter quality control, we recovered 98,180 nuclei with a mean of 2,130 genes per nuclei. Upon cross‐sample alignment and t‐stochastic neighborhood embedding clustering (Fig. 1C), we found 21 excitatory neuronal subpopulations (Exc‐sub) in CA1 and 26 in STG, and 22 and 27 inhibitory neuronal subpopulations (Inh‐sub) in CA1 and STG, respectively; 16 astrocytes subpopulations in both areas and 20 microglia subpopulations in CA1 and 17 in STG (Fig. 2). One STG Exc‐sub, expressing CUX2 and LAMP5 genes showed vulnerability in lvPPA patients. Also, one STG Inh‐sub, expressing the ADARB2 gene, showed vulnerability for all AD patients. Furthermore, two astrocytes subpopulations (one in both areas and one in STG) and three STG microglia subpopulations showed proportional composition changes comparing AD patients and HC.ConclusionOur preliminary study identified a vulnerable population of excitatory neurons related to lvPPA. We are conducting validation studies using quantitative pathology to confirm these results. Furthermore, analysis of a higher number of cases is ongoing and will continue to inform on factors associated with neuronal vulnerability.

Abstract INTRODUCTION We aimed to describe baseline amyloid‐beta (Aβ) and tau‐positron emission tomograrphy (PET) from Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS), a prospective multi‐site observational study of sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). METHODS We analyzed baseline [18F]Florbetaben (Aβ) and [18F]Flortaucipir (tau)‐PET from cognitively impaired participants with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia aged < 65 years. Florbetaben scans were used to distinguish cognitively impaired participants with EOAD (Aβ+) from EOnonAD (Aβ−) based on the combination of visual read by expert reader and image quantification. RESULTS 243/321 (75.7%) of participants were assigned to the EOAD group based on amyloid‐PET; 231 (95.1%) of them were tau‐PET positive (A+T+). Tau‐PET signal was elevated across cortical regions with a parietal‐predominant pattern, and higher burden was observed in younger and female EOAD participants. DISCUSSION LEADS data emphasizes the importance of biomarkers to enhance diagnostic accuracy in EOAD. The advanced tau‐PET binding at baseline might have implications for therapeutic strategies in patients with EOAD. HIGHLIGHTS 72% of patients with clinical EOAD were positive on both amyloid‐ and tau‐PET. Amyloid‐positive patients with EOAD had high tau‐PET signal across cortical regions. In EOAD, tau‐PET mediated the relationship between amyloid‐PET and MMSE. Among EOAD patients, younger onset and female sex were associated with higher tau‐PET.