Corrigendum: Age-Dependent Relationship Between Plasma Aβ40 and Aβ42 and Total Tau Levels in Cognitively Normal Subjects

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00222.]

Age-Dependent Relationship Between Plasma Aβ40 and Aβ42 and Total Tau Levels in Cognitively Normal Subjects

Both amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles are pathological hallmarks in the brains of patients with Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD). However, the constituents of these hallmarks, amyloid beta (Aβ) 40, Aβ42, and total Tau (t-Tau), have been detected in the blood of cognitively normal subjects by using an immunomagnetic reduction (IMR) assay. Whether these levels are age-dependent is not known, and their interrelation remains undefined. We determined the levels of these biomarkers in cognitively normal subjects of different age groups. A total of 391 cognitively normal subjects aged 23-91 were enrolled from hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America. Healthy cognition was evaluated by NIA-AA guidelines to exclude subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD and by cognitive assessment using the Mini Mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). We examined the effect of age on plasma levels of Aβ40, Aβ42, and t-Tau and the relationship between these biomarkers during aging. Additionally, we explored age-related reference intervals for each biomarker. Plasma t-Tau and Aβ42 levels had modest but significant correlations with chronological age ( = 0.127, = 0.0120 for t-Tau; = -0.126, = 0.0128 for Aβ42), ranging from ages 23 to 91. Significant positive correlations were detected between Aβ42 and t-Tau in the groups aged 50 years and older, with Rho values ranging from 0.249 to 0.474. Significant negative correlations were detected between Aβ40 and t-Tau from age 40 to 91 ( ranged from -0.293 to -0.582) and between Aβ40 and Aβ42 in the age groups of 30-39 ( = -0.562, = 0.0235), 50-59 ( = -0.261, = 0.0142), 60-69 ( = -0.303, = 0.0004), and 80-91 ( = 0.459, = 0.0083). We also provided age-related reference intervals for each biomarker. In this multicenter study, age had weak but significant effects on the levels of Aβ42 and t-Tau in plasma. However, the age group defined by decade revealed the emergence of a relationship between Aβ40, Aβ42, and t-Tau in the 6th and 7th decades. Validation of our findings in a large-scale and longitudinal study is warranted

Treatment patterns and use of resources in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex : insights from the TOSCA registry

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) is a rare autosomal-dominant disorder caused by mutations in the TSC1 or TSC2 genes. Patients with TSC may suffer from a wide range of clinical manifestations; however, the burden of TSC and its impact on healthcare resources needed for its management remain unknown. Besides, the use of resources might vary across countries depending on the country-specific clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to describe the use of TSC-related resources and treatment patterns within the TOSCA registry. A total of 2,214 patients with TSC from 31 countries were enrolled and had a follow-up of up to 5 years. A search was conducted to identify the variables containing both medical and non-medical resource use information within TOSCA. This search was performed both at the level of the core project as well as at the level of the research projects on epilepsy, subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA), lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM), and renal angiomyolipoma (rAML) taking into account the timepoints of the study, age groups, and countries. Data from the quality of life (QoL) research project were analyzed by type of visit and age at enrollment. Treatments varied greatly depending on the clinical manifestation, timepoint in the study, and age groups. GAB Aergics were the most prescribed drugs for epilepsy, and mTOR inhibitors are dramatically replacing surgery in patients with SEGA, despite current recommendations proposing both treatment options. mTOR inhibitors are also becoming common treatments in rAML and LAM patients. Forty-two out of the 143 patients (29.4%) who participated in the QoL research project reported inpatient stays over the last year. Data from non-medical resource use showed the critical impact of TSC on job status and capacity. Disability allowances were more common in children than adults (51.1% vs 38.2%). Psychological counseling, social services and social worker services were needed by <15% of the patients, regardless of age. The long-term nature, together with the variability in its clinical manifestations, makes TSC a complex and resource-demanding disease. The present study shows a comprehensive picture of the resource use implications of TSC

Clinical characteristics of subependymal giant cell astrocytoma in tuberous sclerosis complex

International audienceBackground: This study evaluated the characteristics of subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) entered into the TuberOus SClerosis registry to increase disease Awareness (TOSCA). Methods: The study was conducted at 170 sites across 31 countries. Data from patients of any age with a documented clinical visit for TSC in the 12 months preceding enrollment or those newly diagnosed with TSC were entered. Results: SEGA were reported in 554 of 2,216 patients (25%). Median age at diagnosis of SEGA was 8 years (range, 18 years. SEGA were symptomatic in 42.1% of patients. Symptoms included increased seizure frequency (15.8%), behavioural disturbance (11.9%), and regression/loss of cognitive skills (9.9%), in addition to those typically associated with increased intracranial pressure. SEGA were significantly more frequent in patients with TSC2 compared to TSC1 variants (33.7 vs. 13.2 %, p < 0.0001). Main treatment modalities included surgery (59.6%) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (49%). Conclusions: Although SEGA diagnosis and growth typically occurs during childhood, SEGA can occur and grow in both infants and adults

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field