Cargando…
Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences
INTRODUCTION: While Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is divided into severity stages, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains a solitary construct despite clinical and prognostic heterogeneity. This study aimed to characterize differences in genetic, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), neuroimaging, and neuropsychol...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7289958/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32581762 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00139 |
_version_ | 1783545567591268352 |
---|---|
author | Moore, Elizabeth E. Liu, Dandan Pechman, Kimberly R. Acosta, Lealani Mae Y. Bell, Susan P. Davis, L. Taylor Blennow, Kaj Zetterberg, Henrik Landman, Bennett A. Schrag, Matthew S. Hohman, Timothy J. Gifford, Katherine A. Jefferson, Angela L. |
author_facet | Moore, Elizabeth E. Liu, Dandan Pechman, Kimberly R. Acosta, Lealani Mae Y. Bell, Susan P. Davis, L. Taylor Blennow, Kaj Zetterberg, Henrik Landman, Bennett A. Schrag, Matthew S. Hohman, Timothy J. Gifford, Katherine A. Jefferson, Angela L. |
author_sort | Moore, Elizabeth E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: While Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is divided into severity stages, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains a solitary construct despite clinical and prognostic heterogeneity. This study aimed to characterize differences in genetic, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), neuroimaging, and neuropsychological markers across clinician-derived MCI stages. METHODS: Vanderbilt Memory & Aging Project participants with MCI were categorized into 3 severity subtypes at screening based on neuropsychological assessment, functional assessment, and Clinical Dementia Rating interview, including mild (n = 18, 75 ± 8 years), moderate (n = 89 72 ± 7 years), and severe subtypes (n = 18, 78 ± 8 years). At enrollment, participants underwent neuropsychological testing, 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and optional fasting lumbar puncture to obtain CSF. Neuropsychological testing and MRI were repeated at 18-months, 3-years, and 5-years with a mean follow-up time of 3.3 years. Ordinary least square regressions examined cross-sectional associations between MCI severity and apolipoprotein E (APOE)-ε4 status, CSF biomarkers of amyloid beta (Aβ), phosphorylated tau, total tau, and synaptic dysfunction (neurogranin), baseline neuroimaging biomarkers, and baseline neuropsychological performance. Longitudinal associations between baseline MCI severity and neuroimaging and neuropsychological trajectory were assessed using linear mixed effects models with random intercepts and slopes and a follow-up time interaction. Analyses adjusted for baseline age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and intracranial volume for MRI models. RESULTS: Stages differed at baseline on APOE-ε4 status (early < middle = late; p-values < 0.03) and CSF Aβ (early > middle = late), phosphorylated and total tau (early = middle < late; p-values < 0.05), and neurogranin concentrations (early = middle < late; p-values < 0.05). MCI stage related to greater longitudinal cognitive decline, hippocampal atrophy, and inferior lateral ventricle dilation (early < late; p-values < 0.03). DISCUSSION: Clinician staging of MCI severity yielded longitudinal cognitive trajectory and structural neuroimaging differences in regions susceptible to AD neuropathology and neurodegeneration. As expected, participants with more severe MCI symptoms at study entry had greater cognitive decline and gray matter atrophy over time. Differences are likely attributable to baseline differences in amyloidosis, tau, and synaptic dysfunction. MCI staging may provide insight into underlying pathology, prognosis, and therapeutic targets. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7289958 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72899582020-06-23 Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences Moore, Elizabeth E. Liu, Dandan Pechman, Kimberly R. Acosta, Lealani Mae Y. Bell, Susan P. Davis, L. Taylor Blennow, Kaj Zetterberg, Henrik Landman, Bennett A. Schrag, Matthew S. Hohman, Timothy J. Gifford, Katherine A. Jefferson, Angela L. Front Aging Neurosci Neuroscience INTRODUCTION: While Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is divided into severity stages, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains a solitary construct despite clinical and prognostic heterogeneity. This study aimed to characterize differences in genetic, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), neuroimaging, and neuropsychological markers across clinician-derived MCI stages. METHODS: Vanderbilt Memory & Aging Project participants with MCI were categorized into 3 severity subtypes at screening based on neuropsychological assessment, functional assessment, and Clinical Dementia Rating interview, including mild (n = 18, 75 ± 8 years), moderate (n = 89 72 ± 7 years), and severe subtypes (n = 18, 78 ± 8 years). At enrollment, participants underwent neuropsychological testing, 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and optional fasting lumbar puncture to obtain CSF. Neuropsychological testing and MRI were repeated at 18-months, 3-years, and 5-years with a mean follow-up time of 3.3 years. Ordinary least square regressions examined cross-sectional associations between MCI severity and apolipoprotein E (APOE)-ε4 status, CSF biomarkers of amyloid beta (Aβ), phosphorylated tau, total tau, and synaptic dysfunction (neurogranin), baseline neuroimaging biomarkers, and baseline neuropsychological performance. Longitudinal associations between baseline MCI severity and neuroimaging and neuropsychological trajectory were assessed using linear mixed effects models with random intercepts and slopes and a follow-up time interaction. Analyses adjusted for baseline age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and intracranial volume for MRI models. RESULTS: Stages differed at baseline on APOE-ε4 status (early < middle = late; p-values < 0.03) and CSF Aβ (early > middle = late), phosphorylated and total tau (early = middle < late; p-values < 0.05), and neurogranin concentrations (early = middle < late; p-values < 0.05). MCI stage related to greater longitudinal cognitive decline, hippocampal atrophy, and inferior lateral ventricle dilation (early < late; p-values < 0.03). DISCUSSION: Clinician staging of MCI severity yielded longitudinal cognitive trajectory and structural neuroimaging differences in regions susceptible to AD neuropathology and neurodegeneration. As expected, participants with more severe MCI symptoms at study entry had greater cognitive decline and gray matter atrophy over time. Differences are likely attributable to baseline differences in amyloidosis, tau, and synaptic dysfunction. MCI staging may provide insight into underlying pathology, prognosis, and therapeutic targets. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7289958/ /pubmed/32581762 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00139 Text en Copyright © 2020 Moore, Liu, Pechman, Acosta, Bell, Davis, Blennow, Zetterberg, Landman, Schrag, Hohman, Gifford and Jefferson. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Moore, Elizabeth E. Liu, Dandan Pechman, Kimberly R. Acosta, Lealani Mae Y. Bell, Susan P. Davis, L. Taylor Blennow, Kaj Zetterberg, Henrik Landman, Bennett A. Schrag, Matthew S. Hohman, Timothy J. Gifford, Katherine A. Jefferson, Angela L. Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences |
title | Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences |
title_full | Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences |
title_fullStr | Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences |
title_full_unstemmed | Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences |
title_short | Mild Cognitive Impairment Staging Yields Genetic Susceptibility, Biomarker, and Neuroimaging Differences |
title_sort | mild cognitive impairment staging yields genetic susceptibility, biomarker, and neuroimaging differences |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7289958/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32581762 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00139 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mooreelizabethe mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT liudandan mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT pechmankimberlyr mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT acostalealanimaey mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT bellsusanp mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT davisltaylor mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT blennowkaj mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT zetterberghenrik mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT landmanbennetta mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT schragmatthews mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT hohmantimothyj mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT giffordkatherinea mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences AT jeffersonangelal mildcognitiveimpairmentstagingyieldsgeneticsusceptibilitybiomarkerandneuroimagingdifferences |