4.2 Article

Voxel-Based Morphometry in Tau-Positive and Tau-Negative Frontotemporal Lobar Degenerations

Journal

NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES
Volume 1, Issue 4-5, Pages 225-230

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000080990

Keywords

Tau; Frontotemporal lobar degeneration; Voxel-based morphometry; Magnetic resonance imaging

Funding

  1. European Union, Key Action 3 'The Cell Factory' [QLK3-CT-2001-02362]
  2. UCLH/NHNN
  3. Medical Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The identification of specific, diagnostically useful predictors of protein dysfunction in the frontotemporal lobar degenerations (FTLD) is a problem of great clinical and biological interest. Correlations between regional patterns of tissue loss and specific proteinopathies have not been established. Objective: Specific brain imaging correlates of protein tau dysfunction were sought using voxel-based morphometry in FTLD subgroups with and without tau pathology. Methods: Seventeen patients with pathologically or genetically confirmed diagnoses of FTLD who had undergone volumetric brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were identified retrospectively and tau-positive (n = 9) and tau-negative (n = 8) subgroups were defined. MRI data were compared with healthy age-and sex-matched controls using voxel-based morphometry implemented in a statistical parametric mapping software package. Results: Compared with controls, tau-positive and tau-negative sub-groups had extensive common areas of regional brain atrophy predominantly affecting the frontal and anterior temporal lobes. No specific brain imaging features were identified for either subgroup. Conclusion: Patterns of frontotemporal atrophy do not predict the presence or absence of tau pathology; conversely, different immunohistochemical profiles are associated with similar patterns of regional vulnerability to neuronal loss in FTLD. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available