1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Vascular contributions to Alzheimer's disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and is characterized by progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Understanding the pathophysiology underlying AD is paramount for the management of individuals at risk of and suffering from AD. The vascular hypothesis stipulates a relationship between cardiovascular disease and AD-related changes although the nature of this relationship remains unknown. In this review, we discuss several potential pathological pathways of vascular involvement in AD that have been described including dysregulation of neurovascular coupling, disruption of the blood brain barrier, and reduced clearance of metabolite waste such as beta-amyloid, a toxic peptide considered the hallmark of AD. We will also discuss the two-hit hypothesis which proposes a 2-step positive feedback loop in which microvascular insults precede the accumulation of Aß and are thought to be at the origin of the disease development. At neuroimaging, signs of vascular dysfunction such as chronic cerebral hypoperfusion have been demonstrated, appearing early in AD, even before cognitive decline and alteration of traditional biomarkers. Cerebral small vessel disease such as cerebral amyloid angiopathy, characterized by the aggregation of Aß in the vessel wall, is highly prevalent in vascular dementia and AD patients. Current data is unclear whether cardiovascular disease causes, precipitates, amplifies, precedes, or simply coincides with AD. Targeted imaging tools to quantitatively evaluate the intracranial vasculature and longitudinal studies in individuals at risk for or in the early stages of the AD continuum could be critical in disentangling this complex relationship between vascular disease and AD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references241

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease

          In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration

            Summary Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a common accompaniment of ageing. Features seen on neuroimaging include recent small subcortical infarcts, lacunes, white matter hyperintensities, perivascular spaces, microbleeds, and brain atrophy. SVD can present as a stroke or cognitive decline, or can have few or no symptoms. SVD frequently coexists with neurodegenerative disease, and can exacerbate cognitive deficits, physical disabilities, and other symptoms of neurodegeneration. Terminology and definitions for imaging the features of SVD vary widely, which is also true for protocols for image acquisition and image analysis. This lack of consistency hampers progress in identifying the contribution of SVD to the pathophysiology and clinical features of common neurodegenerative diseases. We are an international working group from the Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration. We completed a structured process to develop definitions and imaging standards for markers and consequences of SVD. We aimed to achieve the following: first, to provide a common advisory about terms and definitions for features visible on MRI; second, to suggest minimum standards for image acquisition and analysis; third, to agree on standards for scientific reporting of changes related to SVD on neuroimaging; and fourth, to review emerging imaging methods for detection and quantification of preclinical manifestations of SVD. Our findings and recommendations apply to research studies, and can be used in the clinical setting to standardise image interpretation, acquisition, and reporting. This Position Paper summarises the main outcomes of this international effort to provide the STandards for ReportIng Vascular changes on nEuroimaging (STRIVE).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease at 25 years

              Abstract Despite continuing debate about the amyloid β‐protein (or Aβ hypothesis, new lines of evidence from laboratories and clinics worldwide support the concept that an imbalance between production and clearance of Aβ42 and related Aβ peptides is a very early, often initiating factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Confirmation that presenilin is the catalytic site of γ‐secretase has provided a linchpin: all dominant mutations causing early‐onset AD occur either in the substrate (amyloid precursor protein, APP) or the protease (presenilin) of the reaction that generates Aβ. Duplication of the wild‐type APP gene in Down's syndrome leads to Aβ deposits in the teens, followed by microgliosis, astrocytosis, and neurofibrillary tangles typical of AD. Apolipoprotein E4, which predisposes to AD in > 40% of cases, has been found to impair Aβ clearance from the brain. Soluble oligomers of Aβ42 isolated from AD patients' brains can decrease synapse number, inhibit long‐term potentiation, and enhance long‐term synaptic depression in rodent hippocampus, and injecting them into healthy rats impairs memory. The human oligomers also induce hyperphosphorylation of tau at AD‐relevant epitopes and cause neuritic dystrophy in cultured neurons. Crossing human APP with human tau transgenic mice enhances tau‐positive neurotoxicity. In humans, new studies show that low cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42 and amyloid‐PET positivity precede other AD manifestations by many years. Most importantly, recent trials of three different Aβ antibodies (solanezumab, crenezumab, and aducanumab) have suggested a slowing of cognitive decline in post hoc analyses of mild AD subjects. Although many factors contribute to AD pathogenesis, Aβ dyshomeostasis has emerged as the most extensively validated and compelling therapeutic target.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Translational Research
                Translational Research
                Elsevier BV
                19315244
                April 2023
                April 2023
                : 254
                : 41-53
                Article
                10.1016/j.trsl.2022.12.003
                10481451
                36529160
                8e68acf2-46d2-4f3e-a4e0-e3b515e2c232
                © 2023

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content2,799

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors4,345