Conclusions We have an interesting http://www.selleckchem.com/products/ldk378.html window into the development of neuropathological lesions and their associations with AD-risk genes in the general population, and as far as we know, this is the first study of its kind. SP were found to associate with age, gender, and APOE??4, but not consistently with CLU, CR1 or PICALM, suggesting that these SNPs most likely do not affect the development of the studied neuropathological lesions. Further studies should replicate these findings in a larger autopsy series of the same kind, both with and without AD cases, to define the occurrence of these neuropathological lesions within the context of normal aging.
Our results suggest that whilst these SNPs are associated with probable AD cases (in the GWAS), they do not strongly relate to SP prevalence, or at all to NFT, in an autopsy series most representative of the general population, possibly indicating their complex involvement in the disease. Abbreviations AD: Alzheimer’s disease; APOE: apolipoprotein E; CI: confidence interval; CLU: clusterin; CR1: complement component (3b/4b) receptor 1; GWAS: genome wide association studies; NFT: neurofibrillary tangles; OR: odds ratio; PICALM: phosphatidylinositol binding clathrin assembly protein; SNPs: single nucleotide polymorphisms; SP: senile plaques; TASTY: Tampere autopsy study. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors’ contributions All authors contributed to this manuscript. EHK performed experiments and analyses and wrote the manuscript. HH, TL and SH measured the neuropathological lesions.
SG and PJK collected the autopsy series. SG, HH and PJK provided comments and discussions on the progress of the manuscript. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Heini Huhtala (for assistance with statistical analyses) and Sari Tuomisto (for assistance with genotyping). This work was supported by funds from the Medical Research Fund of Tampere University Hospital, the Pirkanmaa AV-951 Regional Fund of the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, and the Yrj? Jahnsson Foundation.
The development in 1984 of consensus criteria [1] for diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) capped a period of evolving knowledge that AD could be differentiated not only from normal aging but also from other causes of neurodegenerative dementias.
On average, clinical diagnosis using these consensus criteria is approximately 81% sensitive and 70% specific compared to the gold standard, pathology at autopsy [2], a performance that equals or exceeds the performance of proposed diagnostic criteria for many other neurodegenerative diseases [2,3]. Nevertheless, there remains both room and selleck compound a need for improvement in diagnostic accuracy. Up to 20% of subjects clinically diagnosed with AD do not have AD pathology at autopsy [4-6], a percentage that is essentially unchanged from the estimate in the 1984 consensus publication [1].