4.6 Article

TDP-43 pathology in primary progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia with pathologic Alzheimer disease

期刊

ACTA NEUROPATHOLOGICA
卷 120, 期 1, 页码 43-54

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00401-010-0681-2

关键词

Primary progressive aphasia; Frontotemporal dementia; Alzheimer disease; FTLD-TDP; TDP-43 proteinopathy; Hippocampal sclerosis

资金

  1. NIH [AG13854, AG12300, P30 AG012300]
  2. McCune Foundation
  3. Winspear Family Center for Research on the Neuropathology of Alzheimer Disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The clinical syndrome of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) can be associated with a variety of neuropathologic diagnoses at autopsy. Thirty percent of cases have Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology, most often in the usual distribution, which defies principles of brain-behavior organization, in that aphasia is not symptomatic of limbic disease. The present study investigated whether concomitant TDP-43 pathology could resolve the lack of clinico-anatomic concordance. In this paper, 16 cases of clinical PPA and 10 cases of primarily non-aphasic frontotemporal dementia (FTD), all with AD pathology, were investigated to determine whether their atypical clinical phenotypes reflected the presence of additional TDP-43 pathology. A comparison group consisted of 27 cases of pathologic AD with the typical amnestic clinical phenotype of probable AD. Concomitant TDP-43 pathology was discovered in only three of the FTD and PPA but in more than half of the typical amnestic clinical phenotypes. Hippocampal sclerosis (HS) was closely associated with TDP-43 pathology when all groups were combined for analysis. Therefore, the clinical phenotypes of PPA and FTD in cases with pathologic AD are only rarely associated with TDP-43 proteinopathy. Furthermore, medial temporal TDP-43 pathology is more tightly linked to HS than to clinical phenotype. These findings challenge the current notions about clinicopathologic correlation, especially about the role of multiple pathologies.

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