Tangle and neuritic burden from neurofibrillary tangle maturity markers in the hippocampus are differentially correlated to tau‐PET, MRI, and cognitive measures

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThere is a gap in knowledge concerning which tangle maturity levels (Moloney, Alzheimers Dement, 2021) are associated with antemortem measures (tau‐PET, MRI, cognitive testing). We hypothesized antemortem measures would be more strongly correlated with markers recognizing middling to advanced tangle maturity. We additionally sought to assess the strength of the relationship with tangle and neuritic pathology recognized by tangle maturity markers.MethodPosterior hippocampi from n = 30 cases with antemortem measures ≤3 years prior to death were cut (5µm) and immunostained with tau antibodies to evaluate early (AT8), middling (PHF‐1), or advanced (2E9) tangle maturity. GENIE (pattern recognition software) separated tangle from neuritic burden (Figure). Hippocampus, parahippocampus, and fusiform were analyzed to correlate digital pathology with flortaucipir tau‐PET standard uptake value ratio (SUVr, cerebellar crus normalization), MRI volume/thickness, and cognitive measures which included Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) delayed recall, Mini‐Mental State Exam (MMSE), and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR).ResultThe strongest relationships observed with flortaucipir were with PHF‐1 and 2E9 burden (Table). AT8 tangle and neuritic burden correlations with flortaucipir were relatively similar in the hippocampus but were stronger with neuritic pathology in parahippocampus and fusiform. PHF‐1 tangle and neuritic burden correlations were relatively similar with flortaucipir. 2E9 correlations were stronger with neuritic pathology in hippocampus. MRI measures were more strongly correlated with PHF‐1 and 2E9 burden. AT8 tangle and neuritic burden were correlated with fusiform thickness. The correlations between MRI measures and 2E9 tangle and neuritic burden were similar. Correlations between cognitive measures were similar between tangle maturity markers. AVLT delayed recall correlated with all tangle maturity markers, but neuritic burden was stronger for AT8 and 2E9 in hippocampus compared to tangle burden. MMSE correlated with neuritic burden for all tangle maturity markers. CDR remained statistically non‐significant.ConclusionInterpretation of the strength of the relationship between tau burden and antemortem measures differed across tangle maturity markers. Neuroimaging measures may be more sensitive to middle/advanced maturity markers with limited differences between tangle and neuritic pathology. These findings may be biologically relevant and imply either a limited recognition of tangles depending on antibody epitope, and/or may represent the clinicoradiologic impact of increasing neuritic burden.