4.1 Article

Potential structural and functional biomarkers of upper motor neuron dysfunction in ALS

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/21678421.2015.1074707

Keywords

ALS; Cortical thickness; SICI

Funding

  1. Motor Neuron Disease Research Institute of Australia, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
  2. National Health and Medical research Council of Australia Program Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assessment of upper motor neuron (UMN) function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) remains clinically based. Given the potential difficulties in identifying UMN signs, objective biomarkers of UMN dysfunction are important. Consequently, the present study assessed utility of cortical thickness analysis combined with threshold tracking transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as biomakers of UMN dysfunction in ALS. Cortical thickness analysis and threshold tracking TMS studies were undertaken on 25 ALS patients and results were compared to healthy control subjects, with different control groups used for each technique.Structural and functional abnormalities were evident in both motor cortices in the ALS cohort and were heralded by marked reduction of short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI (RAPB) 1.4 +/- 2.4%; SICI (LAPB) 3.6 +/- 1.9%; SICI (CONTROLS)10.5 +/- 1.1%, p<0.01), resting motor threshold (p<0.05) and cortical silent period duration (p<0.001) combined with increase in MEP amplitude (p<0.05) and intracortical facilitation (p<0.05). Significant cortical thinning was evident in the bitemporal regions (p<0.05), while precentral gyrus cortical thinning was evident in 56% of cases and when combined with TMS abnormalities disclosed UMN dysfunction in 88% of cases. In conclusion, findings from the present study establish that a combination of structural and functional assessment of corticomotoneurons may increase the yield of objectively identifying UMN dysfunction in ALS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available