Abstract

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia due to neurodegeneration and is characterized by extracellular senile plaques composed of amyloid β1–42 (Aβ) as well as intracellular neurofibrillary tangles consisting of phosphorylated tau (p-tau). Dementia with Lewy bodies constitutes a continuous spectrum with Parkinson’s disease, collectively termed Lewy body disease (LBD). LBD is characterized by intracellular Lewy bodies containing α-synuclein (α-syn). The core clinical features of AD and LBD spectra are distinct, but the two spectra share common cognitive and behavioral symptoms. The accumulation of pathological proteins, which acquire pathogenicity through conformational changes, has long been investigated on a protein-by-protein basis. However, recent evidence suggests that interactions among these molecules may be critical to pathogenesis. For example, Aβ/tau promotes α-syn pathology, and α-syn modulates p-tau pathology. Furthermore, clinical evidence suggests that these interactions may explain the overlapping pathology between AD and LBD in molecular imaging and post-mortem studies. Additionally, a recent hypothesis points to a common mechanism of prion-like progression of these pathological proteins, via neural circuits, in both AD and LBD. This suggests a need for understanding connectomics and their alterations in AD and LBD from both pathological and functional perspectives. In AD, reduced connectivity in the default mode network is considered a hallmark of the disease. In LBD, previous studies have emphasized abnormalities in the basal ganglia and sensorimotor networks; however, these account for movement disorders only. Knowledge about network abnormalities common to AD and LBD is scarce because few previous neuroimaging studies investigated AD and LBD as a comprehensive cohort. In this paper, we review research on the distribution and interactions of pathological proteins in the brain in AD and LBD, after briefly summarizing their clinical and neuropsychological manifestations. We also describe the brain functional and connectivity changes following abnormal protein accumulation in AD and LBD. Finally, we argue for the necessity of neuroimaging studies that examine AD and LBD cases as a continuous spectrum especially from the proteinopathy and neurocircuitopathy viewpoints. The findings from such a unified AD and Parkinson’s disease (PD) cohort study should provide a new comprehensive perspective and key data for guiding disease modification therapies targeting the pathological proteins in AD and LBD.

Highlights

  • Existing MRI cohort studies do not allow us to perform such an analysis because they recruit Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD) cohorts independently with different evaluation metrics. It remains unknown how Aβ, tau and α-syn are involved in the differences in DMN abnormalities between AD and PD

  • Network and structural abnormalities of the brain should be compared in detail, preferably using the HCPstyle MRI protocol (Glasser et al, 2016; Koike et al, 2021). This modern MRI technology should be combined with the standardized assessment of clinical scales and proteinopathies with fluid biomarkers and SPECT/PET

  • Indispensable knowledge has been garnered from previously established AD cohorts and LBD cohorts

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In parallel with global aging, the number of elderly patients with neurodegenerative diseases is rapidly increasing worldwide. In AD, the accumulation of Aβ1−42 and p-tau is thought to become saturated before the onset of symptoms such as cognitive decline and cerebral atrophy, which become apparent later (Weiner et al, 2015) Reflecting this time course, changes in brain structure occur mainly after the onset of cognitive decline, and structural MRI primarily provides imaging markers for diagnosis and severity assessment after onset. Further research is needed to clarify the connectivity changes in many other networks, as the observed connectivity changes in a particular network differ among reports This inconsistency in FC findings may be caused by differences in the predominant clinical symptoms and disease stage (Hohenfeld et al, 2018; Filippi et al, 2019; Wolters et al, 2019). These problems should be overcome by accumulating high-quality rsfMRI data with sufficiently large sample size, followed by cutting-edge preprocessing such as Human Connectome Project (HCP)-style MRI protocol (Glasser et al, 2016) and the adjustment of medication

Summary
Findings
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call