Synaptic protein CSF levels relate to memory scores in individuals without dementia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4607202/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Synaptic protein CSF levels relate to memory scores in individuals without dementia

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4607202/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

INTRODUCTION: We investigated how cerebrospinal fluid levels of synaptic proteins associate with memory function in normal cognition (CN) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and investigated the effect of amyloid positivity on these associations.

METHODS: We included 242 CN (105(43%) abnormal amyloid), and 278 MCI individuals (183(66%) abnormal amyloid) from EMIF-AD MBD and ADNI. For 181 (EMIF-AD MBD) and 36 (ADNI) proteins with a synaptic annotation in SynGO, associations with word learning recall were analysed with linear models.

RESULTS: Subsets of synaptic proteins showed lower levels with worse recall in preclinical AD (EMIF-AD MBD: 7, ADNI: 5 proteins, none overlapping), prodromal AD (EMIF-AD MBD only, 27 proteins) and non-AD MCI (EMIF-AD MBD: 1, ADNI: 7 proteins). The majority of these associations were specific to these groups.

DISCUSSION: Synaptic disturbance-related memory impairment occurred very early in AD, indicating it may be relevant to develop therapies targeting the synapse early in the disease.

Synaptic proteins

cerebrospinal fluid proteomics

memory performance

early Alzheimer’s disease

Systematic Review: We reviewed the literature on the associations of synaptic protein levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with memory function in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Most studies, referenced in the text, showed memory associations for single or few synaptic markers such as neurogranin. We extend these studies by investigating memory associations of a large group of 182 synaptic proteins in CSF, and investigate if associations depend on clinical stage and amyloid status.
Interpretation: We found that reduced synaptic protein levels relate to lower memory function already in preclinical AD, suggesting synapse-targeting treatment approaches may benefit in very early phases of the disease.
Future directions: While we measured more synaptic proteins than in previous studies, this was still just a fraction of the total synaptic proteome. Future studies should perform targeted techniques to cover more of the synaptic proteome.

The precise role of specific synaptic proteins in memory functioning is unclear
We studied how 182 CSF synaptic proteins relate to memory functioning in two cohorts
Memory function was tested in cognitively normal individuals and MCI participants
Lower levels of 39 proteins were associated with lower memory in preclinical or prodromal AD

Memory impairment is a key feature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)(Jack et al., 2018; Jansen et al., 2015). Decline in memory function precedes dementia onset, starting already in the preclinical stage of AD (Jansen et al., 2018). A better understanding of mechanisms underlying memory loss can help the development of novel therapies.

Previous studies have shown that memory scores are associated with reduced synaptic density,(Masliah et al., 2001, 1994; Scheff et al., 2013, 2011, 2006, 1990; Scheff and Price, 1998; Sun et al., 2014) but this research was mostly conducted post-mortem in AD patients who were in late disease stages. Synaptic protein levels can also be assessed in vivo in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). So far, studies have focused on few or single synaptic markers in CSF. For example, neurogranin (NRGN) is a widely studied postsynaptic protein, showing higher levels with worse memory performance in prodromal AD(Headley et al., 2018), although contradicting results have been found for memory associations in cognitively normal (CN) individuals(Dulewicz et al., 2020; Headley et al., 2018; Kvartsberg et al., 2015) and in AD dementia(Nilsson et al., 2021; Tarawneh et al., 2016). Associations of synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP25) and neuromodulin (also called growth-associated protein 43, GAP43) with memory functioning depended on disease stage, with associations in early but not in later AD.(Pereira et al., 2020) Many additional synaptic proteins exist, for which it is largely unknown if they correlate with memory functioning in the early stages of AD before dementia onset. Furthermore, individuals can have mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with normal amyloid (i.e., non-AD MCI), and it remains unclear what mechanisms may explain impaired memory in such individuals.

Using a proteomics approach of CSF, we aimed to analyse which synaptic proteins are related to memory scores in older non-demented individuals. We hypothesized that synaptic protein levels in CSF would be associated with worse memory scores, and that a subset of these associations would be specific for AD pathology and/or depend on cognitive stage. In two independent cohorts, we analysed cross-sectional associations of synaptic protein levels in CSF with memory scores in preclinical AD and prodromal AD, and in CN amyloid normal controls and non-AD MCI, to test if memory associations were specific for AD pathology.

2.1 Study participants

Two independent study cohorts, the European Medical Information Network Alzheimer’s disease multi-modal biomarker discovery study (EMIF-AD MBD)(Bos et al., 2018) and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were used in these analyses. All participants provided informed consent to participate in these studies. We selected individuals who were CN and individuals with a clinical diagnosis of MCI if they had memory test scores and CSF proteomic data available. In EMIF-AD MBD, CN was defined in all centres based on neuropsychological examination scores within 1.5 standard deviation (SD) of age-, sex- and education adjusted standards, and in four centres with additional criteria (see(Bos et al., 2018) for more details). MCI was defined using cohort-specific criteria (in all cohorts Petersen criteria(Petersen, 2004) except for Lausanne, where Winblad criteria(Winblad et al., 2004) were used and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) of 0.5).

The ADNI (adni.loni.usc.edu) was launched in 2003 as a public-private partnership, led by Principal Investigator Michael W. Weiner, MD. The primary goal of ADNI has been to test whether serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), other biological markers, and clinical and neuropsychological assessment can be combined to measure the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). For up-to-date information, see www.adni-info.org. Detailed information about the definitions of CN and MCI in ADNI, and methodology of the memory testing can be found in the general procedures manual of ADNI(“ADNI General Procedures Manual,” 2006). In short, CN was defined as absence of memory complaints, normal scores on the Logical Memory II subscale (delayed Paragraph Recall) from the Wechsler Memory Scaled – Revised, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score ≥24 and CDR of 0. MCI was defined by a memory complaint, abnormal scores on the Logical Memory II subscale, MMSE ≥ 24 and CDR of 0.5.

For the analyses, we characterized participants from EMIF-AD MBD and ADNI into four diagnostic groups depending on their clinical and amyloid status: CN individuals with normal amyloid (controls), CN individuals with abnormal amyloid (preclinical AD), MCI individuals with normal amyloid (non-AD MCI) and MCI individuals with abnormal amyloid (prodromal AD).

2.2 CSF amyloid, t-tau and p-tau biomarkers

For EMIF-AD MBD, we used cut-points for amyloid status that were previously determined with gaussian mixture modelling for each center (Tijms et al., 2018). T-tau and p-tau were measured in local laboratories using either Innotest (Fujirebio Europe, Gent, Belgium) (4 cohorts), or with INNO-BIA AlzBio3 (Fujirebio Europe), and we used local cut-offs to determine abnormality(Bos et al., 2018). In ADNI, CSF amyloid, t-tau and p-tau were measured using multiplex xMAP Luminex platform (Luminex Corp, Austin, TX) with INNO-BIA AlzBio3 (Fujirebio Europe), with abnormality defined as amyloid < 192 pg/ml, t-tau > 93 pg/ml and p-tau > 23 pg/ml.

2.3 Proteomics

In EMIF-AD MBD, proteomics was performed with the tandem mass tag (TMT) technique using 10+1 plexing(Bos et al., 2018) as previously described(Batth et al., 2014; Magdalinou et al., 2017; Tijms, 2020). In addition, in a central laboratory (Gothenburg University, Sweden), levels of neurofilament light (NEFL) were determined with the NF-Light assay (UmanDiagnostics, Umeå, Sweden) and NRGN with an in-house immunoassay(Portelius et al., 2015). All protein levels were natural log-transformed. In ADNI, proteomic data were generated using LC/MS-MRM (panel developed by Caprion Proteome Inc.)(“MRM Assays : Caprion,” n.d.) and the Rules-Based Medicine (RBM)(“Myriad RBM Operational Procedures White Paper - Myriad RBM,” n.d.) platform. We used the pre-processed and quality checked normalized data publicly available on the ADNI website (adni.loni.usc.edu). We natural log-transformed and Z-scored individual RBM measurements and MRM peptide measurements. Next, we generated protein scores by averaging MRM peptides and correlating RBM proteins that were mapped to the same protein (r at least 0.5). Protein levels in both datasets were standardized relative to the mean and standard deviations from controls with normal amyloid, t-tau and p-tau.

The ADNI proteomic dataset consisted of 202 unique proteins and EMIF-AD MBD proteomics of 2537 proteins (missing values, ADNI: mean 0.3%, range 0 to 45%; EMIF-AD MBD: mean 6%, range 0 to 99%).

2.4 Synapse proteins

To select synaptic proteins from our proteomic datasets, we used Synaptic Gene Ontologies (SynGO)(Koopmans et al., 2019; “SynGO - Synaptic Gene Ontologies and annotations,” n.d.), a curated database with detailed annotation of known synapse-related proteins. An additional criterion for inclusion in these analyses was that proteins were measured in at least 25 individuals per diagnostic subgroup. In ADNI, 36 synaptic proteins (17% out of 202 total, missing values: mean 0.02%, range 0-0.37%) were selected, and in EMIF-AD MBD 181 proteins (13% out of 1350 total, missing values: mean 12%, range 0-66%), with an overlap of 35 proteins (missing values: mean 2.6%, range 0-31%) (Figure 1).

2.5 Memory tests

We measured memory functioning with both immediate and delayed recall scores of memory tests, because they may differ in their sensitivity to detect decline in different stages of AD(Bilgel et al., 2014; Jutten et al., 2021; Timmers et al., 2019). In EMIF-AD MBD, memory function was assessed with cohort specific tests (auditory verbal learning test (AVLT): 3 cohorts; Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease wordlist (CERAD), Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test(FCSRT) and RI-48 in the remaining 3 cohorts). Test scores were Z transformed according to age, sex and education norms (as detailed in(Bos et al., 2018)), and values ranged between -5 to 5.

In ADNI, we used the Rey auditory verbal learning test (RAVLT, immediate recall: sum of correctly recalled words over 5 trials, range 0-75; delayed recall: correctly recalled words after 30-minute delay, range 0-15). We transformed the memory scores into age-, education- and sex-adjusted Z-scores, using adjustment factors for age, education and sex that were estimated from linear models for memory performance of all ADNI controls.

2.6 Statistical analyses

Differences in demographic variables between groups were assessed with chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, Student's t-test or Kruskal-Wallis test when appropriate. Unless indicated otherwise, effects were considered significant at a p-value < 0.05. We first tested if protein levels differed depending on diagnostic group with Analysis of variance (ANOVA), and if so, performed two-sided t-tests between the diagnostic groups. To account for the multiple comparisons (in total 6 tests), we considered differences between the diagnostic groups significant at a false discovery rate (FDR)-adjusted p-value < 0.05. Next, we tested associations between memory test scores (outcome) and synaptic protein level (predictor) with linear models that included the covariates diagnostic group, age, sex and years of education (model 1) and additionally the interaction between protein level and diagnostic group (model 2). To report the effects of protein levels on memory scores across diagnostic groups, we selected proteins with a diagnostic group-interaction p-value ≥ 0.1. To report the effects of protein levels on memory scores that depended on diagnostic group, we selected proteins if they had a significant interaction with diagnostic group (interaction p-value < 0.1), and calculated associations with memory scores separately in the different diagnostic groups. For reference, we also provide statistical details of both models for all proteins (Supplementary Table 1). We then tested if the memory-associated proteins in our analyses were enriched for specific synaptic functions with the SynGO website(“SynGO - Synaptic Gene Ontologies and annotations,” n.d.), and selected biological process ontology terms for the enrichment analyses when they included at least 3 genes. For visualisation purposes, we calculated composite scores of synaptic proteins, by averaging proteins which showed an interaction (interaction p-value < 0.1) with diagnostic group on immediate or delayed recall scores. All analyses were run in R 4.1.2 “Bird Hippie”. Emmeans 1.4.2 was used for estimation of regression coefficients.

We included 137 controls, 105 individuals with preclinical AD, 183 individuals with prodromal AD and 95 individuals with non-AD MCI (Table 1). In both studies, the preclinical and prodromal AD groups had more Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 carriers and tended to have higher CSF t-tau and p-tau levels than controls. Compared to EMIF-AD MBD participants, ADNI participants were older (all groups), had received longer education (all groups) and had lower memory test scores (controls, preclinical and prodromal AD) (Table 1, Supplementary Figure 1).

We selected 181 synaptic proteins in EMIF-AD MBD and 36 synaptic proteins in ADNI (Figure 1). In EMIF-AD MBD, 30 of these proteins differed between diagnostic groups (ANOVA p-value < 0.05). Relative to controls, individuals with preclinical AD showed lower levels of neurosecretory protein VGF (VGF), neuronal pentraxin-2 (NPTX2), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and cadherin-2 (CDH2) and higher levels of FXYD domain containing ion transport regulator 6 (FXYD6). Compared to controls, individuals with prodromal AD showed lower levels of NPTX2 and higher levels of 14-3-3 epsilon (YWHAE), 14-3-3 eta (YWHAH), 14-3-3 zeta (YWHAZ), NEFL, NRGN, GAP43, Tumor protein D52 (TPD52), VAMP-associated protein A (VAPA) and Aldo-keto reductase family 1 member A1 (AKR1A1), and the levels of these proteins were typically also higher in prodromal AD compared to preclinical AD and non-AD MCI (Figure 2A, Supplementary table 1). There was no specific association with synaptic locations (pre- and post-synapse) or synaptic functions (synaptic signalling or organization). In ADNI, only four proteins showed different levels between diagnostic subgroups (Figure 2A, Supplementary table 1). As in EMIF-AD MBD, NRGN and NEFL were increased in prodromal AD compared to controls, and compared to preclinical AD or non-AD MCI (Figure 2B). Fibrinogen alpha chain (FGA) and plasminogen (PLG) were increased in non-AD MCI relative to prodromal AD and/or controls.

3.1 Associations of synaptic protein levels with memory scores

Here, we will summarise the results separately for immediate and delayed recall on memory tests, and separately report associations across diagnostic groups vs. associations that depended on diagnostic group (for full results, see Supplementary table 1, and kwesenhagen.shinyapps.io/Synaptic_protein_associations_with_memory). First, for immediate recall on memory tests, we observed most associations with protein levels across all individuals (EMIF-AD MBD: 55 synaptic proteins; ADNI: 7 proteins, i.e., NEFL, SPARC-like protein 1 (SPARCL1), VGF, NPTX2, cadherin-13 (CDH13)). For most of these proteins lower levels were associated with lower immediate memory scores (EMIF-AD MBD: 49 of 55 proteins (89%); ADNI: 6 of 7 proteins, i.e., SPARCL1, VGF, NPTX2, CDH13; 86%; Figure 3). In EMIF-AD MBD, higher levels of the remaining 6 of these 55 proteins (IL-1 receptor accessory protein (IL1RAP), tripartite motif-containing protein 3 (TRIM3), FGA, fibrinogen beta and -gamma (FGB, FGG), PLG) and in ADNI, higher levels of NEFL were associated with worse immediate recall. Comparing EMIF-AD MBD and ADNI, only CDH13 was reproduced in both cohorts. We then analysed if associations between protein levels and immediate recall scores depended on diagnostic group. In EMIF-AD MBD, 30 synaptic proteins showed an interaction with diagnostic group on immediate recall scores. Of these, lower levels of 27 proteins and higher levels of one protein were associated with worse immediate recall in prodromal AD (Figure 4), while only 1 to 2 associations were observed in controls, preclinical AD and non-AD MCI (Figure 4, Supplementary table 2). In ADNI, 8 proteins showed an interaction with diagnostic group on immediate recall. For 7 of these proteins lower levels were associated with worse immediate recall in non-AD MCI (nectin-1 (NECTIN1), nicastrin (NCSTN), CLSTN3, neuronal pentraxin receptor (NPTXR), CNTN2, neurexin-1 (NRXN1), amyloid precursor protein (APP); Figure 4).

For delayed recall, 4 proteins in EMIF-AD MBD and 1 protein in ADNI were associated with worse delayed recall independent of diagnostic group (EMIF-AD MBD: IL1RAP, MAM domain-containing protein 3 (MDGA1), adhesion G protein-coupled receptor B3 (ADGRB3), filamin-A (FLNA); ADNI: NEFL; Figure 3, Supplementary table 2). For 22 proteins in EMIF-AD MBD, the association between synapse protein level and delayed recall differed between diagnostic groups. In controls, higher levels of glypican-4 (GPC4) and ADAM 10 (ADAM10) were associated with lower recall scores. In preclinical AD, lower levels of 7 proteins were associated with lower delayed recall scores, and in prodromal AD, lower levels of semaphorin-3F (SEMA3F), cadherin-1 (CDH1) and ephrin-B3 (EFNB3) were associated with lower delayed recall scores. For 11 proteins in ADNI, the association between synapse protein level and delayed recall differed between diagnostic groups. In preclinical AD, lower levels of calsyntenin-1 (CLSTN1), calsyntenin-3 (CLSTN3), secretogranin (SCG2), cell adhesion molecule 3 (CADM3) and neuronal cell adhesion molecule (NRCAM) were associated with lower delayed recall scores (Figure 4). In non-AD MCI and prodromal AD, lower levels of 2 to 3 proteins were associated with worse memory (Figure 4, Supplementary Figure 2).

We finally performed enrichment analyses on proteins of which the association with memory scores differed between diagnostic groups. Synaptic proteins that were associated with immediate recall in non-AD MCI showed enrichment for synapse organization, and proteins related with immediate recall in prodromal AD showed enrichment for synapse organization and trans-synaptic signalling (Supplementary Figure 2). Synaptic proteins related with delayed recall in preclinical AD showed enrichment for synapse organization and presynaptic functions (Supplementary Figure 3). Figure 5 summarizes the associations of synaptic proteins with memory scores through composite scores of synaptic proteins associated with delayed and immediate recall in EMIF-AD MBD and ADNI.

Our main finding is that synaptic protein levels in CSF were associated with memory function in predementia AD. The synaptic proteins that related to memory function across all groups may reflect synapse loss due to other causes than AD, while proteins associated with memory in AD specifically may reflect early disease-related synapse impairment. Therefore, treatment targeting synapses may be beneficial in early phases of AD.

4.1 Reduced synaptic protein levels associated with worse memory functioning in preclinical AD

We found that the concentrations of five synaptic proteins (VGF, cadherin-2 (CDH2), NPTX2, BDNF and FXYD6) were reduced in preclinical AD relative to controls in EMIF-AD MBD. Reduced synaptic protein levels in CSF have been reported before in preclinical AD(Lleó et al., 2019). We extended previous studies by showing that lower memory function (i.e. delayed recall scores) associated with decreased synaptic protein levels in CSF in preclinical AD. These associations may reflect synapse loss (Masliah et al., 2001, 1994; Scheff et al., 2013, 2011, 2006, 1990; Scheff and Price, 1998; Sun et al., 2014). The deterioration of synapses could in turn result in memory impairment (Arendt, 2009; Colom-Cadena et al., 2020; Tzioras et al., 2023). Alternatively, this association can be bidirectionally interpreted, with higher levels of these proteins correlating with improved delayed recall scores. As the associated proteins did not show actual decreased levels compared to controls, it remains a possibility that higher protein levels could compensate for neuronal loss.

4.2 Associations of synaptic proteins with immediate and delayed recall in prodromal AD

We found higher levels of NRGN in prodromal AD relative to controls which is in line with previous studies that showed that higher NRGN levels are associated with advanced disease stage and worse cognition(Casaletto et al., 2017; Kvartsberg et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2020). In our study, however, there was only a slight trend towards a relationship between increased NRGN levels and memory function, which could imply that NRGN also relates to other aspects such as disease severity. In line with our results, decreases in NPTX2 and VGF have previously been associated with worse cognition in non-demented individuals with AD and conversion to dementia (Libiger et al., 2021; Llano et al., 2023; Llano et al., 2019). These results reinforce the prognostic value of these proteins in AD. Overall, the associations of synaptic proteins with immediate and delayed recall were similar, but substantially more associations with immediate recall than delayed recall were found in prodromal AD subjects. This may be due to floor effects in delayed recall scores.(Bilgel et al., 2014; Jutten et al., 2021) However, in our data, floor effects were not apparent in delayed recall scores (Supplementary Figure 1). A possible alternative mechanism, although only speculative, could be that these associations are specific for immediate recall through still unknown biological mechanisms, which needs further study. These proteins could be a potential target for disease modifying therapies if these proteins do reveal to be specific to immediate recall.

4.3 Associations of synaptic proteins with immediate and delayed recall in non-AD MCI

Of 11 memory-associated proteins in non-AD MCI, only two proteins (laminin subunit alpha-2 (LAMA2) and Calsyntenin 3 (CLSTN3)) overlapped between prodromal AD and non-AD MCI. CLSTN3 also overlapped between preclinical AD and non-AD MCI. These proteins may reflect synaptic components related to memory dysfunction that are not specific for an abnormal amyloid status. The majority of memory-associated proteins in non-AD MCI (7 proteins) were specifically related to memory in non-AD MCI. Therefore, these may reflect synaptic dysfunction and memory decline caused by different disorders. For example, for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) that can underly non-AD MCI(Ciafone et al., 2020; Martinez-Horta and Kulisevsky, 2019), aggregated alpha synuclein could induce synaptic disturbances(Gcwensa et al., 2021; Trudler et al., 2021).

4.4 Associations of synaptic proteins with delayed recall in controls

Rather surprisingly, in controls a higher concentration of 5 synaptic proteins were associated with worse delayed recall (Figure 4). These proteins were not associated with memory in any of the other diagnostic groups. Some controls in EMIF-AD MBD had increased tau levels, which may have contributed to low memory scores in these individuals, as tau can impair synaptic plasticity and cause synaptic damage (Hu et al., n.d.; Kaniyappan et al., 2017; Ondrejcak et al., 2019; Piacentini et al., 2017). However, the proteins that did associate with memory in the other diagnostic groups showed associations of lower levels with lower memory scores. This suggests that the synaptic processes leading to impaired memory may differ in controls and Alzheimer’s disease.

4.5 Difference in associations between ADNI and EMIF-AD MBD

In general, CSF proteins showed similar associations with memory scores when comparing the EMIF-AD MBD and ADNI datasets. An exception was prodromal AD, in which individuals from the EMIF-AD MBD cohort showed many associations of lower synaptic protein levels and lower immediate recall, which were not observed in ADNI. Potentially, the lack of reproducibility between the cohorts is due to the different word learning tests used in EMIF-AD MBD and ADNI. Prodromal AD individuals in ADNI also had on average lower delayed and immediate recall scores compared to EMIF-AD MBD (Table 1), likely because in ADNI impairment on a memory test was an inclusion criterion for the prodromal AD group, which was not the case in EMIF-AD MBD. The difference in disease severity in prodromal AD and the number of proteins between both cohorts may also explain the lack of reproducibility.

4.6 Memory associations of synaptic subcomponents and functions

In general, we observed that synaptic components (the pre- and post-synapse) and functions (synaptic signaling) showed similar memory associations. This suggests that generalized synapse loss underlies the associations of the observed synaptic proteins with memory. However, in preclinical AD, we observed enrichment of synapse organization among proteins that were associated with delayed recall in both cohorts. This could imply synapse (re-)organization might be a process involved in memory functioning in very early AD.

4.7 Strengths and limitations

A limitation of this study is that cohorts used different memory tests, procedures to normalize memory scores, different criteria for the diagnostic groups, and different proteomic platforms. Nonetheless, we found similar associations of synaptic protein levels with delayed recall in both cohorts, which indicated these results are robust for cohort-dependent effects. For associations of the proteins with immediate recall in prodromal AD and non-AD MCI, we observed more heterogeneity between cohorts, perhaps reflecting that individuals with MCI form a heterogenous group. This stresses the importance of new, larger studies in individuals with prodromal AD.
Our data included only a part of the synaptic proteome (16.5%), so future studies should target a larger part of the synaptic proteome to investigate the role of synapses in memory functioning in more detail. Furthermore, while CSF proteomics allow simultaneous measurement of many proteins, it is not possible to determine whether alterations in concentrations are specific to particular anatomical brain structures. As such, future studies combining CSF proteomics and synapse PET would provide great anatomical detail of alterations in synaptic density. Lastly, the associations with memory performance we reported were not corrected for multiple testing. Instead, we tested associations with memory performance in two independent datasets which improves the robustness of the results. Strengths of our study are a relatively large sample and publication of the memory associations of the analyzed synaptic proteins in an interactive online database (available at kwesenhagen.shinyapps.io/Synaptic_protein_associations_with_memory).

4.8 Conclusions

Lower levels of synaptic proteins were associated with memory loss in early AD This indicates that the synapse may be an attractive target for therapeutic modulation in early AD. Further studies should therefore aim to study longitudinal relationships across different stages of AD.

Alzheimer’s disease

ADAM10

ADAM 10

ADGRB3

adhesion G protein-coupled receptor B3

ADNI

Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

AKR1A1

Aldo-keto reductase family 1 member A1

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

APOE

Apolipoprotein E

APP

amyloid precursor protein

AVLT

auditory verbal learning test

BDNF

brain-derived neurotrophic factor

CADM3

cell adhesion molecule 3

CDH1

cadherin-1

CDH2

cadherin-2

CDH11

cadherin-11

CDH13

cadherin-13

CDR

Clinical Dementia Rating

CERAD

Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease wordlist

CLSTN1

calsyntenin-1

CLSTN3

calsyntenin-3

cognitively normal

CNTN1

contactin-1

CNTN2

contactin-2

CSF

cerebrospinal fluid

DLB

dementia with Lewy bodies

EFNB3

ephrin-B3

EMIF-AD MBD

European Medical Information Network Alzheimer’s disease multi-modal biomarker discovery study

FCSRT

Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test

FDR

false discovery rate

FGA

fibrinogen alpha chain

FGB

fibrinogen beta chain

FGG

fibrinogen gamma chain

FLNA

filamin-A

FXYD6

FXYD domain containing ion transport regulator 6

GAP43

neuromodulin (also known as growth-associated protein 43)

GPC4

glypican-4

GRIA4

glutamate receptor 4

IL1RAP

IL-1 receptor accessory protein

LAMA2

laminin subunit alpha-2

LC/MS-MRM

liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry with multiple reaction monitoring

LRRTM2

leucine-rich repeat transmembrane neuronal protein 2

MCI

mild cognitive impairment

MDGA1

MAM domain-containing protein 3

MMSE

Mini-Mental State Examination

MRI

magnetic resonance imaging

NCSTN

nicastrin

NECTIN1

nectin-1

NEFL

neurofilament light

NLGN2

neuroligin-2

non-AD MCI

MCI with normal amyloid

NPTX2

neuronal pentraxin-2

NPTXR

neuronal pentraxin receptor

NRCAM

neuronal cell adhesion molecule

NRGN

neurogranin

NRXN1

neurexin-1

NRXN3

neurexin-3

Parkinson’s disease

PET

positron emission tomography

PLG

plasminogen

RAVLT

Rey auditory verbal learning test

RBM

Rules-Based Medicine

SCG2

secretogranin-2

SEMA3F

Semaphorin-3F

SNAP25

synaptosomal-associated protein 25

SPARCL1

SPARC-like protein 1

SynGO

Synaptic Gene Ontologies

TMT

tandem mass tag

TPD52

tumor protein D52

TRIM3

tripartite motif-containing protein 3

VAPA

VAMP-associated protein A

VGF

neurosecretory protein VGF

YWHAE

14-3-3 epsilon

YWHAH

14-3-3 eta

YWHAZ

14-3-3 zeta

Conflicts of interest

KB has served as a consultant, at advisory boards, or at data monitoring committees for Abcam, Axon, BioArctic, Biogen, JOMDD/Shimadzu. Julius Clinical, Lilly, MagQu, Novartis, Pharmatrophix, Prothena, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens Healthineers, and is a co-founder of Brain Biomarker Solutions in Gothenburg AB (BBS), which is a part of the GU Ventures Incubator Program, outside the work presented in this paper. HZ has served at scientific advisory boards and/or as a consultant for Abbvie, Alector, Annexon, Artery Therapeutics, AZTherapies, CogRx, Denali, Eisai, Nervgen, Pinteon Therapeutics, Red Abbey Labs, Passage Bio, Roche, Samumed, Siemens Healthineers, Triplet Therapeutics, and Wave, has given lectures in symposia sponsored by Cellectricon, Fujirebio, Alzecure, Biogen, and Roche, and is a co-founder of Brain Biomarker Solutions in Gothenburg AB (BBS), which is a part of the GU Ventures Incubator Program. PS has acquired grants for the institution from GE Healthcare and Piramal and received consultancy/speaker fees paid to the institution from Novartis, Probiodrug, Biogen, Roche, and EIP Pharma, LLC in the past 2 years. CT received grants from the European Commission, the Dutch Research Council (ZonMW), Association of Frontotemporal Dementia/Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, The Weston Brain Institute, Alzheimer Netherlands. Prof. dr. Teunissen has functioned in advisory boards of Roche, received non-financial support in the form of research consumables from ADxNeurosciences and Euroimmun, performed contract research or received grants from Probiodrug, Biogen, Esai, Toyama, Janssen Prevention Center, Boehringer, AxonNeurosciences, EIP farma, PeopleBio, Roche. The other authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Local institutional review boards approved the procedures for this study and written informed consent was obtained in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Competing Interests

Funding

This work has been supported by ZonMW Memorabel grant programme #733050824 (KW, BMT and PJV) and by the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under EMIF-AD MBD grant agreement #115372. KB is supported by the Swedish Research Council (#2017 − 00915), the Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), USA (#RDAPB-201809-2016615), the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation (#AF-742881), Hjärnfonden, Sweden (#FO2017-0243), the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the County Councils, the ALF-agreement (#ALFGBG-715986), the European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disorders (JPND2019-466-236), the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, (grant #1R01AG068398-01), and the Alzheimer’s Association 2021 Zenith Award (ZEN-21-848495). HZ is a Wallenberg Scholar supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (#2018–02532), the European Research Council (#681712), Swedish State Support for Clinical Research (#ALFGBG-720931), the Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), USA (#201809–2016862), the AD Strategic Fund and the Alzheimer's Association (#ADSF-21-831376-C, #ADSF-21-831381-C and #ADSF-21-831377-C), the Olav Thon Foundation, the Erling-Persson Family Foundation, Stiftelsen för Gamla Tjänarinnor, Hjärnfonden, Sweden (#FO2019-0228), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 860197 (MIRIADE), European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disorders (JPND2021-00694), and the UK Dementia Research Institute at UCL. JG is supported by grants from Alzheimerfonden (AF-930934) and Stiftelsen för Gamla Tjänarinnor.

Author Contribution

KW was responsible for data analysis. Both KW and DL contributed equally to writing this article. EMIF-AD: JG, HZ. Supervision: PJV, BMT. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement

The data utilized for this article came from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (adni.loni.usc.edu). Investigators associated with ADNI contributed to its design and implementation and/or provided data, though they did not engage in the analysis or authorship of this report. A full list of ADNI investigators is available at: http://adni.loni.usc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/how_to_apply/ADNI_Acknowledgement_List.pdf.

Data Availability

ADNI data can be downloaded from adni.loni.usc.edu. The raw proteomic data from EMIF-AD MBD has been submitted to the ProteomeXchange Consortium through the PRIDE partner repository, under the dataset identifier https://doi.org/10.6019/PXD019910. Requests for access to other EMIF-AD MBD data should be directed to the authors. Data sharing restrictions may apply due to consent agreements from participants in each cohort and European GDPR regulations, which limit data sharing with several non-European countries. Statistical data are provided in the supplementary information files.

ADNI General Procedures Manual [WWW Document]. 2006. URL http://adni.loni.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ADNI_GeneralProceduresManual.pdf (accessed 8.13.20).
Arendt T. Synaptic degeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Neuropathol. 2009;118:167–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-009-0536-x.
Batth TS, Francavilla C, Olsen JV. Off-line high-pH reversed-phase fractionation for in-depth phosphoproteomics. J Proteome Res. 2014;13:6176–86. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr500893m.
Bereczki E, Bogstedt A, Höglund K, Tsitsi P, Brodin L, Ballard C, Svenningsson P, Aarsland D. Synaptic proteins in CSF relate to Parkinson’s disease stage markers. npj Parkinson’s Disease. 2017;2017 3(1 3):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41531-017-0008-2.
Bilgel M, An Y, Lang A, Prince J, Ferrucci L, Jedynak B, Resnick SM. Trajectories of Alzheimer disease-related cognitive measures in a longitudinal sample. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2014;10:735–e7424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2014.04.520.
Bos I, Vos S, Vandenberghe R, Scheltens P, Engelborghs S, Frisoni G, Molinuevo JL, Wallin A, Lleó A, Popp J, Martinez-Lage P, Baird A, Dobson R, Legido-Quigley C, Sleegers K, Van Broeckhoven C, Bertram L, ten Kate M, Barkhof F, Zetterberg H, Lovestone S, Streffer J, Visser PJ. 2018. The EMIF-AD Multimodal Biomarker Discovery study: design, methods and cohort characteristics. Alzheimers Res Ther 10, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-018-0396-5.
Casaletto KB, Elahi FM, Bettcher BM, Neuhaus J, Bendlin BB, Asthana S, Johnson SC, Yaffe K, Carlsson C, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Kramer JH. Neurogranin, a synaptic protein, is associated with memory independent of Alzheimer biomarkers. Neurology. 2017;89:1782–8. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000004569.
Ciafone J, Little B, Thomas AJ, Gallagher P. The Neuropsychological Profile of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Lewy Body Dementias. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2020;26:210–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617719001103.
Colom-Cadena M, Spires-Jones T, Zetterberg H, et al. The clinical promise of biomarkers of synapse damage or loss in Alzheimer’s disease. Alz Res Therapy. 2020;12:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00588-4.
Dulewicz M, Kulczyńska-Przybik A, Mroczko B. Neurogranin and VILIP-1 as Molecular Indicators of Neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:8335. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21218335.
Gcwensa NZ, Russell DL, Cowell RM, Volpicelli-Daley LA. Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Synaptic and Axon Degeneration in Parkinson’s Disease. Front Cell Neurosci. 2021;0:44. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNCEL.2021.626128.
Headley A, De Leon-Benedetti A, Dong C, Levin B, Loewenstein D, Camargo C, Rundek T, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, Wright CB, Sun X. Neurogranin as a predictor of memory and executive function decline in MCI patients. Neurology. 2018;90:e887–95. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005057.
Hu N-W, Corbett GT, Moore S, Walsh DM, Livesey FJ, Rowan MJ. n.d. Extracellular Forms of Ab and Tau from iPSC Models of Alzheimer’s Disease Disrupt Synaptic Plasticity Correspondence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.04.040.
Jack CR, Bennett DA, Blennow K, Carrillo MC, Dunn B, Haeberlein SB, Holtzman DM, Jagust W, Jessen F, Karlawish J, Liu E, Molinuevo JL, Montine T, Phelps C, Rankin KP, Rowe CC, Scheltens P, Siemers E, Snyder HM, Sperling R, Elliott C, Masliah E, Ryan L, Silverberg N. NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2018;14:535–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JALZ.2018.02.018.
Jansen WJ, Ossenkoppele R, Knol DL, Tijms BM, Scheltens P, Verhey FRJ, Visser PJ, Aalten P, Aarsland D, Alcolea D, Alexander M, Almdahl IS, Arnold SE, Baldeiras I, Barthel H, van Berckel BNM, Bibeau K, Blennow K, Brooks DJ, van Buchem MA, Camus V, Cavedo E, Chen K, Chetelat G, Cohen AD, Drzezga A, Engelborghs S, Fagan AM, Fladby T, Fleisher AS, van der Flier WM, Ford L, Förster S, Fortea J, Foskett N, Frederiksen KS, Freund-Levi Y, Frisoni GB, Froelich L, Gabryelewicz T, Gill KD, Gkatzima O, Gómez-Tortosa E, Gordon MF, Grimmer T, Hampel H, Hausner L, Hellwig S, Herukka S-K, Hildebrandt H, Ishihara L, Ivanoiu A, Jagust WJ, Johannsen P, Kandimalla R, Kapaki E, Klimkowicz-Mrowiec A, Klunk WE, Köhler S, Koglin N, Kornhuber J, Kramberger MG, van Laere K, Landau SM, Lee DY, de Leon M, Lisetti V, Lleó A, Madsen K, Maier W, Marcusson J, Mattsson N, de Mendonça A, Meulenbroek O, Meyer PT, Mintun MA, Mok V, Molinuevo JL, Møllergård HM, Morris JC, Mroczko B, van der Mussele S, Na DL, Newberg A, Nordberg A, Nordlund A, Novak GP, Paraskevas GP, Parnetti L, Perera G, Peters O, Popp J, Prabhakar S, Rabinovici GD, Ramakers IHGB, Rami L, de Oliveira R, Rinne C, Rodrigue JO, Rodríguez-Rodríguez KM, Roe E, Rot CM, Rowe U, Rüther CC, Sabri E, Sanchez-Juan O, Santana P, Sarazin I, Schröder M, Schütte J, Seo C, Soetewey SW, Soininen F, Spiru H, Struyfs L, Teunissen H, Tsolaki CE, Vandenberghe M, Verbeek R, Villemagne MM, Vos VL, S.J.B., van Waalwijk G, Wallin. A., Wallin, Å.K., Wiltfang, J., Wolk, D.A., Zboch, M., Zetterberg, H., Zetterberg, H., 2015. Prevalence of Cerebral Amyloid Pathology in Persons Without Dementia. JAMA 313, 1924. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.4668.
Jansen WJ, Ossenkoppele R, Tijms BM, Fagan AM, Hansson O, Klunk WE, van der Flier WM, Villemagne VL, Frisoni GB, Fleisher AS, Lleó A, Mintun MA, Wallin A, Engelborghs S, Na DL, Chételat G, Molinuevo JL, Landau SM, Mattsson N, Kornhuber J, Sabri O, Rowe CC, Parnetti L, Popp J, Fladby T, Jagust WJ, Aalten P, Lee DY, Vandenberghe R, Resende de Oliveira C, Kapaki E, Froelich L, Ivanoiu A, Gabryelewicz T, Verbeek MM, Sanchez-Juan P, Hildebrandt H, Camus V, Zboch M, Brooks DJ, Drzezga A, Rinne JO, Newberg A, de Mendonça A, Sarazin M, Rabinovici GD, Madsen K, Kramberger MG, Nordberg A, Mok V, Mroczko B, Wolk DA, Meyer PT, Tsolaki M, Scheltens P, Verhey FRJ, Visser PJ, Aarsland D, Alcolea D, Alexander M, Almdahl IS, Arnold SE, Baldeiras I, Barthel H, van Berckel BNM, Blennow K, van Buchem MA, Cavedo E, Chen K, Chipi E, Cohen AD, Förster S, Fortea J, Frederiksen KS, Freund-Levi Y, Gkatzima O, Gordon MF, Grimmer T, Hampel H, Hausner L, Hellwig S, Herukka S-K, Johannsen P, Klimkowicz-Mrowiec A, Köhler S, Koglin N, van Laere K, de Leon M, Lisetti V, Maier W, Marcusson J, Meulenbroek O, Møllergård HM, Morris JC, Nordlund A, Novak GP, Paraskevas GP, Perera G, Peters O, Ramakers IHGB, Rami L, Rodríguez-Rodríguez E, Roe CM, Rot U, Rüther E, Santana I, Schröder J, Seo SW, Soininen H, Spiru L, Stomrud E, Struyfs H, Teunissen CE, Vos, S.J.B., van Waalwijk, van Doorn, L.J.C., Waldemar. G., Wallin, Å.K., Wiltfang, J., Zetterberg, H., 2018. Association of Cerebral Amyloid-β Aggregation With Cognitive Functioning in Persons Without Dementia. JAMA Psychiatry 75, 84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3391.
Jutten RJ, Sikkes SAM, Amariglio RE, Buckley RF, Properzi MJ, Marshall GA, Rentz DM, Johnson KA, Teunissen CE, van Berckel BNM, van der Flier WM, Scheltens P, Sperling RA, Papp Kv. Identifying Sensitive Measures of Cognitive Decline at Different Clinical Stages of Alzheimer’s Disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2021;27:426–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617720000934.
Kaniyappan S, Chandupatla RR, Mandelkow E-M, Mandelkow E. Extracellular low-n oligomers of tau cause selective synaptotoxicity without affecting cell viability. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2017;13:1270–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JALZ.2017.04.002.
Koopmans F, van Nierop P, Andres-Alonso M, Byrnes A, Cijsouw T, Coba MP, Cornelisse LN, Farrell RJ, Goldschmidt HL, Howrigan DP, Hussain NK, Imig C, de Jong APH, Jung H, Kohansalnodehi M, Kramarz B, Lipstein N, Lovering RC, MacGillavry H, Mariano V, Mi H, Ninov M, Osumi-Sutherland D, Pielot R, Smalla KH, Tang H, Tashman K, Toonen RFG, Verpelli C, Reig-Viader R, Watanabe K, van Weering J, Achsel T, Ashrafi G, Asi N, Brown TC, De Camilli P, Feuermann M, Foulger RE, Gaudet P, Joglekar A, Kanellopoulos A, Malenka R, Nicoll RA, Pulido C, de Juan-Sanz J, Sheng M, Südhof TC, Tilgner HU, Bagni C, Bayés À, Biederer T, Brose N, Chua JJE, Dieterich DC, Gundelfinger ED, Hoogenraad C, Huganir RL, Jahn R, Kaeser PS, Kim E, Kreutz MR, McPherson PS, Neale BM, O’Connor V, Posthuma D, Ryan TA, Sala C, Feng G, Hyman SE, Thomas PD, Smit AB, Verhage M. 2019. SynGO: An Evidence-Based, Expert-Curated Knowledge Base for the Synapse. Neuron 103, 217–234
.e4
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.05.002.
Kvartsberg H, Duits FH, Ingelsson M, Andreasen N, Öhrfelt A, Andersson K, Brinkmalm G, Lannfelt L, Minthon L, Hansson O, Andreasson U, Teunissen CE, Scheltens P, van der Flier WM, Zetterberg H, Portelius E, Blennow K. Cerebrospinal fluid levels of the synaptic protein neurogranin correlates with cognitive decline in prodromal Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2015;11:1180–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2014.10.009.
Libiger O, Shaw LM, Watson MH, Nairn AC, Umaña KL, Biarnes MC, Canet-Avilés RM, Jack CR, Breton YA, Cortes L, Chelsky D, Spellman DS, Baker SA, Raghavan N, Potter WZ. Longitudinal CSF proteomics identifies NPTX2 as a prognostic biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12353.
Liu W, Lin H, He X, Chen, Lewen, Dai Y, Jia W, Xue X, Tao J, Chen L. Neurogranin as a cognitive biomarker in cerebrospinal fluid and blood exosomes for Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Translational Psychiatry 2020. 2020;10(1 10):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41398-020-0801-2.
Lleó A, Núñez-Llaves R, Alcolea D, Chiva C, Balateu-Paños D, Colom-Cadena M, Gomez-Giro G, Muñoz L, Querol-Vilaseca M, Pegueroles J, Rami L, Lladó A, Molinuevo J, Tainta M, Clarimón J, Spires-Jones T, Blesa R, Fortea J, Martínez-Lage P, Sánchez-Valle R, Sabidó E, Bayés À, Belbin O. 2019. Changes in synaptic proteins precede neurodegeneration markers in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease cerebrospinal fluid. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics mcp.RA118.001290. https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.RA118.001290.
Magdalinou NK, Noyce AJ, Pinto R, Lindstrom E, Holmén-Larsson J, Holtta M, Blennow K, Morris HR, Skillbäck T, Warner TT, Lees AJ, Pike I, Ward M, Zetterberg H, Gobom J. Identification of candidate cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in parkinsonism using quantitative proteomics. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2017;37:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.01.016.
Martinez-Horta S, Kulisevsky J. Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transmission 2019. 2019;126(126):7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00702-019-02003-1.
Masliah E, Mallory M, Alford M, DeTeresa R, Hansen LA, McKeel DW, Morris JC. Altered expression of synaptic proteins occurs early during progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 2001;56:127–9. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.56.1.127.
Masliah E, Mallory M, Hansen L, Richard DT, Alford M, Terry R. Synaptic and neuritic alterations during the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci Lett. 1994;174:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(94)90121-X.
Assays MRM. Caprion [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.caprion.com/en/technology/mrm-assays.php (accessed 8.27.19).
Myriad RBM, Operational Procedures White Paper - Myriad RBM [WWW, Document]. n.d. URL https://myriadrbm.com/scientific-media/myriad-rbm-operational-procedures-white-paper/ (accessed 8.27.19).
Nilsson J, Gobom J, Sjödin S, Brinkmalm G, Ashton NJ, Svensson J, Johansson P, Portelius E, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, Brinkmalm A. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker panel for synaptic dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dementia: Diagnosis Assess Disease Monit. 2021;13. https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12179.
Ondrejcak T, Hu N-W, Qi Y, Klyubin I, Corbett GT, Fraser G, Perkinton MS, Walsh DM, Billinton A, Rowan MJ. 2019. Soluble tau aggregates inhibit synaptic long-term depression and amyloid β-facilitated LTD in vivo. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2019.03.022.
Pereira JB, Janelidze S, Ossenkoppele R, Kvartsberg H, Brinkmalm A, Mattsson-Carlgren N, Stomrud E, Smith R, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, Hansson O. 2020. Untangling the association of amyloid-β and tau with synaptic and axonal loss in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa395.
Petersen RC. Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. J Intern Med. 2004;256:183–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01388.x.
Piacentini R, Puma DDL, Mainardi M, Lazzarino G, Tavazzi B, Arancio O, Grassi C. Reduced gliotransmitter release from astrocytes mediates tau-induced synaptic dysfunction in cultured hippocampal neurons. Glia. 2017;65:1302–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/GLIA.23163.
Portelius E, Zetterberg H, Skillbäck T, Törnqvist U, Andreasson U, Trojanowski JQ, Weiner MW, Shaw LM, Mattsson N, Blennow K. Cerebrospinal fluid neurogranin: Relation to cognition and neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain. 2015;138:3373–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv267.
Scheff SW, DeKosky ST, Price DA. Quantitative assessment of cortical synaptic density in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging. 1990;11:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-4580(90)90059-9.
Scheff SW, Price DA. Synaptic density in the inner molecular layer of the hippocampal dentate gyrus in Alzheimer disease. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1998;57:1146–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005072-199812000-00006.
Scheff SW, Price DA, Schmitt FA, Mufson EJ. Hippocampal synaptic loss in early Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Neurobiol Aging. 2006;27:1372–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.09.012.
Scheff SW, Price DA, Schmitt FA, Roberts KN, Ikonomovic MD, Mufson EJ. Synapse Stability in the Precuneus Early in the Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimer’s Disease. 2013;35:599–609. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-122353.
Scheff SW, Price DA, Schmitt FA, Scheff MA, Mufson EJ. Synaptic loss in the inferior temporal gyrus in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimer’s Disease. 2011;24:547–57. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-2011-101782.
Sun N, Chan F-Y, Lu Y-J, Neves MAC, Lui H-K, Wang Y, Chow K-Y, Chan K-F, Yan S-C, Leung Y-C, Abagyan R, Chan T-H, Wong K-Y. Rational Design of Berberine-Based FtsZ Inhibitors with Broad-Spectrum Antibacterial Activity. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e97514. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097514.
SynGO - Synaptic. Gene Ontologies and annotations [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://www.syngoportal.org/ (accessed 12.24.21).
Tarawneh R, D’Angelo G, Crimmins D, Herries E, Griest T, Fagan AM, Zipfel GJ, Ladenson JH, Morris JC, Holtzman DM. Diagnostic and Prognostic Utility of the Synaptic Marker Neurogranin in Alzheimer Disease. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73:561. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.0086.
Tijms BM. 2020. Pathophysiological subtypes of Alzheimer’s disease based on cerebrospinal fluid proteomics (in press). Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa325.
Tijms BM, Willemse EAJ, Zwan MD, Mulder SD, Visser PJ, van Berckel BNM, van der Flier WM, Scheltens P, Teunissen CE. Unbiased approach to counteract upward drift in cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β 1–42 analysis results. Clin Chem. 2018;64:576–85. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2017.281055.
Timmers T, Ossenkoppele R, Verfaillie SCJ, van der Weijden CWJ, Slot RER, Wesselman LMP, Windhorst AD, Wolters EE, Yaqub M, Prins ND, Lammertsma AA, Scheltens P, van der Flier WM, van Berckel BNM. Amyloid PET and cognitive decline in cognitively normal individuals: the SCIENCe project. Neurobiol Aging. 2019;79:50–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROBIOLAGING.2019.02.020.
Trudler D, Sanz-Blasco S, Eisele YS, Ghatak S, Bodhinathan K, Akhtar MW, Lynch WP, Piña-Crespo JC, Talantova M, Kelly JW, Lipton SA. 2021. α-Synuclein Oligomers Induce Glutamate Release from Astrocytes and Excessive Extrasynaptic NMDAR Activity in Neurons, Thus Contributing to Synapse Loss. J Neurosci 41, 2264–73. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1871-20.2020.
Tzioras M, McGeachan RI, Durrant CS, et al. Synaptic degeneration in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol. 2023;19:19–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-022-00749-z.
Winblad B, Palmer K, Kivipelto M, Jelic V, Fratiglioni L, Wahlund LO, Nordberg A, Bäckman L, Albert M, Almkvist O, Arai H, Basun H, Blennow K, De Leon M, Decarli C, Erkinjuntti T, Giacobini E, Graff C, Hardy J, Jack C, Jorm A, Ritchie K, Van Duijn C, Visser P, Petersen RC. Mild cognitive impairment - Beyond controversies, towards a consensus: Report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med J Intern Med. 2004;240–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01380.x.

Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.

Competing interest reported. KB has served as a consultant, at advisory boards, or at data monitoring committees for Abcam, Axon, BioArctic, Biogen, JOMDD/Shimadzu. Julius Clinical, Lilly, MagQu, Novartis, Pharmatrophix, Prothena, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens Healthineers, and is a co-founder of Brain Biomarker Solutions in Gothenburg AB (BBS), which is a part of the GU Ventures Incubator Program, outside the work presented in this paper. HZ has served at scientific advisory boards and/or as a consultant for Abbvie, Alector, Annexon, Artery Therapeutics, AZTherapies, CogRx, Denali, Eisai, Nervgen, Pinteon Therapeutics, Red Abbey Labs, Passage Bio, Roche, Samumed, Siemens Healthineers, Triplet Therapeutics, and Wave, has given lectures in symposia sponsored by Cellectricon, Fujirebio, Alzecure, Biogen, and Roche, and is a co-founder of Brain Biomarker Solutions in Gothenburg AB (BBS), which is a part of the GU Ventures Incubator Program. PS has acquired grants for the institution from GE Healthcare and Piramal and received consultancy/speaker fees paid to the institution from Novartis, Probiodrug, Biogen, Roche, and EIP Pharma, LLC in the past 2 years. CT received grants from the European Commission, the Dutch Research Council (ZonMW), Association of Frontotemporal Dementia/Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, The Weston Brain Institute, Alzheimer Netherlands. Prof. dr. Teunissen has functioned in advisory boards of Roche, received non-financial support in the form of research consumables from ADxNeurosciences and Euroimmun, performed contract research or received grants from Probiodrug, Biogen, Esai, Toyama, Janssen Prevention Center, Boehringer, AxonNeurosciences, EIP farma, PeopleBio, Roche. The other authors report no conflict of interest.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
19 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
19 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
13 Aug, 2024
Reviews received at journal
24 Jul, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
28 Jun, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
27 Jun, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
27 Jun, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
27 Jun, 2024
First submitted to journal
19 Jun, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Synaptic protein CSF levels relate to memory scores in individuals without dementia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Research in Context

Highlights

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

Conflicts of interest

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Funding

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

Data Availability

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1