Investigating gene expression changes underlying selective hippocampal vulnerability in Alzheimer’s disease using a translational neuropathology approach
Authors: Crist Angela M. , Hinkle Kelly M. , Wang Xue , Lesser Elizabeth R. , Azu Nkem O. , Moloney Christina M. , Frankenhauser Isabelle , Labuzan Sydney A. , Matchett Billie J. , Liesinger Amanda M. , Serie Daniel , DeTure Michael , Cook Casey , Petrucelli Leonard , Petersen Ronald C. , Duara Ranjan , Graff‐Radford Neill R. , Allen Mariet , Carrasquillo Minerva M. , Li Hu , Ross Owen A. , Ertekin‐Taner Nilufer , Dickson Dennis W. , Asmann Yan W. , Carter Rickey E , Murray Melissa E 
Published: December 2020

Background

Using an objective mathematical algorithm to assess corticolimbic involvement of neurofibrillary tangle pathology, we identified three AD subtypes: hippocampal sparing (HpSp) AD, typical AD, and limbic predominant AD. Typical AD brains were representative of the expected patterns of hippocampal and cortical involvement as outlined by Braak tangle stage. In contrast, we discovered an extreme phenotype that exists outside of the Braakian‐concept of neurofibrillary tangle patterns. Hippocampal sparing AD cases demonstrate unexpected sparing of the hippocampus relative to severely involved association cortices and limbic predominant AD cases demonstrate inundation of the hippocampus relative to mildly involved association cortices. Using these AD subtypes, our objective was to leverage our understanding of disease spectrum to uncover transcriptomic changes that underlie selective vulnerability of the hippocampus in AD.

Method

We performed RNA‐sequencing in 40 neuropathologically diagnosed AD cases (10 HpSp, 20 Typical and 10 Limbic) and 15 controls to uncover gene expression changes associated with phenotype differences allowing us to prioritize 44 genes for further exploration. Validation with NanoString and quantification with digital pathology were performed in an expanded cohort of 158 AD cases (36 HpSp, 79 Typical and 35 Limbic) and 32 controls. We quantified digital pathology measures of early tangle pathology (CP13), mature tangle pathology (Ab39), amyloid‐β (33.1.1). In addition, we measured cellular markers for microglia (CD68), endothelia (CD34), and astroglia (GFAP). Deep learning based prediction models were employed, which nominated the SLC38A2 gene as a predictor of AD.

Result

The SLC38A2 gene was originally prioritized in our RNA‐sequencing data based upon differential expression between controls and typical AD. We observed upregulation of SLC38A2 in all AD subtypes. RNA‐seq gene expression measures validated well with NanoString for SLC38A2 (R=0.97, p<0.001). Regression analysis identified early tangle (p=0.011) and late tangle measures (p=0.026) as significant predictors of gene expression, but not amyloid measures (p=0.74). Microgliosis approached significance (p=0.052), but with no contribution from endothelial cell burden (p=0.17) or astrogliosis (p=0.58). Age approached significance (p=0.06), but not sex (p=0.88) or APOE‐ε4 status (p=0.10).

Conclusion

Our data supports consideration of intra‐disease divergence with regard to case stratification and may reveal genes previously masked by heterogeneity of cohorts.