Pathways to selective vulnerability in neuromodulatory subcortical structures during the early pathogenic stages of Alzheimer’s disease

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe two main catecholaminergic members of the isodendritic core nuclei are the substantia nigra (SN) and the locus coeruleus (LC). Despite cytoarchitectural and neurochemical similarities between the two nuclei, the LC is significantly more vulnerable to early degenerative changes in tauopathies like Alzheimer’s disease (AD) as compared to the SN. Here, we seek to use the gradient of vulnerability in these catecholaminergic nuclei to identify pathways associated with vulnerability in early AD pathological stages.MethodThis cohort includes individuals with no neuropathologic entities and Alzheimer’s disease proteinopathic stages. Individuals with TDP‐43, Lewy Body, or Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy pathologic entities were excluded. The LC and SN was dissected from frozen human brainstem tissue using macroscopic anatomic features. To compare the LC and SN, only cases below Braak III with sufficient RNA from both nuclei were included. The Nanostring nCounter platform was used to probe specific pathways related to neurodegenerative processes. DBH and SLC6A3 served as confirmatory readouts of accurate anatomic sampling of the LC and SN. Differential gene expression analysis was used to evaluate patterns of gene expression that differentiate the two nuclei. Annotated gene sets were evaluated using global significance scores (GSS), a representation of cumulative t‐statistics for relevant genes.ResultThe LC and SN were collected from 26 cases (Figure 1) eligible for this analysis. Accurate dissections were confirmed by differential expression of DBH (p = 1.38e‐9) and SLC6A3 (p = 4.5e‐16). Among the differentially expressed genes (Figure 2), genes associated with microglia activation (GSS = 2.35), oxidative stress (GSS = 2.17), and lipid metabolism (GSS = 2.00) significantly differentiated the LC and SN.ConclusionThe LC and SN serve as examples of differentially vulnerable nuclei at the earliest neuropathologic stages of AD. Cell intrinsic factors, physiological demands, vascular contributions, and exposure to extrinsic factors like toxins are thought to contribute to the LC’s early vulnerability. Here, we show that neuroinflammation and oxidative stress pathways are likely central to differential vulnerability at the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease and may represent targets for intervention in prodromal stages.