4.6 Article

Glial cytoplasmic inclusions in neurologically normal elderly: prodromal multiple system atrophy?

期刊

ACTA NEUROPATHOLOGICA
卷 116, 期 3, 页码 269-275

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00401-008-0398-7

关键词

alpha-synuclein; clinicopathologic; glial cytoplasmic inclusion; multiple system atrophy; preclinical

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P50 AG016574, R01 AG015866, P50 AG016574-10, R01-AG15866, P50-AG16574, R01 AG015866-09] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [P50 NS040256, P50 NS040256-09, P50-NS40256] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we used immunohistochemistry to screen for alpha-synuclein pathology in the brains of 241 individuals without clinical evidence of neurologic disease, and discovered 36 cases (15%) with incidental Lewy bodies (LBs) and one case, a 96-year-old woman (0.4%), with inclusions similar to those seen in multiple system atrophy (MSA), a non-familial neurodegenerative disorder characterized by parkinsonism, cerebellar ataxia and autonomic dysfunction and alpha-synuclein immunoreactive glial cytoplasmic inclusions (GCI). In a routine hospital autopsy series of 125 brains, we detected GCI in a neurologically normal 82-year-old man (0.8%). Both cases showed widespread GCI in the central nervous system, as well as a few neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions, but no neuronal loss or gliosis in vulnerable brain regions, including the substantia nigra, putamen, inferior olive and pontine base. Applying a recently proposed grading scale for MSA, the two cases showed pathology far below that detected in patients with clinically overt MSA, suggesting the possibility that these two individuals had preclinical MSA. The prevalence of clinically overt MSA is estimated to be about 4 per 100,000 persons (0.004%), which is far less than the frequency of GCI in this series (0.4-0.8%). Further studies are needed to determine if GCI in neurologically normal elderly represents prodromal MSA or a rare non-progressive age-related alpha-synucleinopathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据