Purpose

The abnormal deposition of tau begins before the onset of clinical symptoms and seems to target specific brain networks. The aim of this study is to identify the spatial patterns of tau deposition in cognitively normal older adults and assess whether they are related to amyloid-β (Aβ), APOE, sex, and longitudinal cognitive decline.

Methods

We included 114 older adults with cross-sectional flortaucipir (FTP) and Pittsburgh Compound-B PET in addition to longitudinal cognitive testing. A voxel-wise independent component analysis was applied to FTP images to identify the spatial patterns of tau deposition. We then assessed whether tau within these patterns differed by Aβ status, APOE genotype, and sex. Linear mixed effects models were built to test whether tau in each component predicted cognitive decline. Finally, we ordered the spatial components based on the frequency of high tau deposition to model tau spread.

Results

We found 10 biologically plausible tau patterns in the whole sample. There was greater tau in medial temporal, occipital, and orbitofrontal components in Aβ-positive compared with Aβ-negative individuals; in the parahippocampal component in ε3ε3 compared with ε2ε3 carriers; and in temporo-parietal and anterior frontal components in women compared with men. Higher tau in temporal and frontal components predicted longitudinal cognitive decline in memory and executive functions, respectively. Tau deposition was most frequently observed in medial temporal and ventral cortical areas, followed by lateral and primary areas.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the spatial patterns of tau in asymptomatic individuals are clinically meaningful and are associated with Aβ, APOE ε2ε3, sex and cognitive decline. These patterns could be used to predict the regional spread of tau and perform in vivo tau staging in older adults.

Background

The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field.

Purpose of review

Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.