Frontotemporal Dementia: clinical, genetic, and pathological heterogeneity

The current clinical syndrome frontotemporal dementia (FTD) was first described in 1892 by the Czech psychiatrist Arnold Pick. He described a patient with aphasia and behavioural changes with on macroscopic examination marked left frontotemporal atrophy. In 1911, Alois Alzheimer described the detailed microscopic changes, including argyrophilic neuronal inclusions, which are still known as Pick bodies. The term Pick’s disease was introduced in 1926 and was used till the early 90’s to describe the clinical and pathological entity. To date, Pick’s disease is used for a neuropathological subgroup of FTD patients. FTD encompasses distinct canonical syndromes: the behavioural variant of FTD (bvFTD), and two language variants, semantic dementia (SD), and progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA). FTD is accompanied by motor neuron disease (MND) in 5 – 15 % of the cases. FTD patients characteristically present at presenile age with variable behavioural changes and language disturbances. The clinical syndrome FTD is part of a wide clinicopathological spectrum designated by the term frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). The last few years have seen major advances in our understanding of FTD, its genetic causes and pathological substrates. In 1994, a genetic-epidemiological study on FTD was started at the Erasmus University Medical Center of Rotterdam. Since then, over 400 patients have been included in our FTD cohort. The aim of this thesis was to describe and determine the relationship between the clinical presentation, genetics and pathology of FTD, with emphasis on the hereditary form of FTD

Genetic screening in early-onset Alzheimer's disease identified three novel presenilin mutations

Mutations in presenilin 1 (PSEN1), presenilin 2 (PSEN2), and amyloid precursor protein (APP) are major genetic causes of early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). Clinical heterogeneity is frequently observed in patients with PSEN1 and PSEN2 mutations. Using whole exome sequencing, we screened a Dutch cohort of 68 patients with EOAD for rare variants in Mendelian Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and prion disease genes. We identified 3 PSEN1 and 2 PSEN2 variants. Three variants, 1 in PSEN1 (p.H21Profs*2) and both PSEN2 (p.A415S and p.M174I), were novel and absent in control exomes. These novel variants can be classified as probable pathogenic, except for PSEN1 (p.H21Profs*2) in which the pathogenicity is uncertain. The initial clinical symptoms between mutation carriers varied from behavioral problems to memory impairment. Our findings extend the mutation spectrum of EOAD and underline the clinical heterogeneity among PSEN1 and PSEN2 mutation carriers. Screening for Alzheimer's disease–causing genes is indicated in presenile dementia with an overlapping clinical diagnosis

Genetic screening in early-onset Alzheimer's disease identified three novel presenilin mutations

Mutations in presenilin 1 (PSEN1), presenilin 2 (PSEN2), and amyloid precursor protein (APP) are major genetic causes of early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). Clinical heterogeneity is frequently observed in patients with PSEN1 and PSEN2 mutations. Using whole exome sequencing, we screened a Dutch cohort of 68 patients with EOAD for rare variants in Mendelian Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and prion disease genes. We identified 3 PSEN1 and 2 PSEN2 variants. Three variants, 1 in PSEN1 (p.H21Profs*2) and both PSEN2 (p.A415S and p.M174I), were novel and absent in control exomes. These novel variants can be classified as probable pathogenic, except for PSEN1 (p.H21Profs*2) in which the pathogenicity is uncertain. The initial clinical symptoms between mutation carriers varied from behavioral problems to memory impairment. Our findings extend the mutation spectrum of EOAD and underline the clinical heterogeneity among PSEN1 and PSEN2 mutation carriers. Screening for Alzheimer's disease–causing genes is indicated in presenile dementia with an overlapping clinical diagnosis

Variation at GRN 3′-UTR rs5848 Is Not Associated with a Risk of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration in Dutch Population

Background: A single nucleotide polymorphism (rs5848) located in the 3′- untranslated region of GRN has recently been associated with a risk of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) in North American population particularly in pathologically confirmed cases with neural inclusions immunoreactive for ubiquitin and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), but negative for tau and alpha-synuclein (FTLD-TDP). Methodology/Principal Findings: In an effort to replicate these results in a different population, rs5848 was genotyped in 256 FTLD cases and 1695 controls from the Netherlands. Single SNP gender-adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed no significant association between variation at rs5848 and FTLD. Fisher's exact test, failed to find any significant association between rs5848 and a subset of 23 pathology confirmed FTLD-TDP cases. Conclusions/Significance: The evidence presented here suggests that variation at rs5848 does not contribute to the etiology of FTLD in the Dutch population

Frequency of ubiquitin and FUS-positive, TDP-43-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a clinically, genetically and pathologically heterogeneous disorder. Within FTLD with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U), a new pathological subtype named FTLD-FUS was recently found with fused in sarcoma (FUS) positive, TDP-43-negative inclusions, and striking atrophy of the caudate nucleus. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of FTLD-FUS in our pathological FTLD series, and to describe the clinical, neuroimaging and neuropathological features of FTLD-FUS, especially caudate atrophy. Demographic and clinical data collected prospectively from 387 patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) yielded 74 brain specimens. Immunostaining was carried out using a panel of antibodies, including AT-8, ubiquitin, p62, FUS, and TDP-43. Cortical and caudate atrophy on MRI (n = 136) was rated as normal, mild-moderate or severe. Of the 37 FTLD-U cases, 33 were reclassified as FTLD-TDP and four (0.11, 95%: 0.00–0.21) as FTLD-FUS, with ubiquitin and FUS-positive, p62 and TDP-43-negative neuronal intranuclear inclusions (NII). All four FTLD-FUS cases had a negative family history, behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD), and three had an age at onset ≤40 years. MRI revealed mild-moderate or severe caudate atrophy in all, with a mean duration from onset till MRI of 63 months (range 16–119 months). In our total clinical FTD cohort, we found 11 patients (0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.05) with bvFTD, negative family history, and age at onset ≤40 years. Caudate atrophy was present in 10 out of 136 MRIs, and included all four FUS-cases. The newly identified FTLD-FUS has a frequency of 11% in FTLD-U, and an estimated frequency of three percent in our clinical FTD cohort. The existence of this pathological subtype can be predicted with reasonable certainty by age at onset ≤40 years, negative family history, bvFTD and caudate atrophy on MRI

Differences in Discriminability and Response Bias on Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Delayed Recognition in Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease

Objective:Episodic memory is impaired in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia but thought to be relatively spared in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). This view is challenged by evidence of memory impairment in bvFTD. This study investigated differences in recognition memory performance between bvFTD and AD.Method:We performed a retrospective analysis on the recognition trial of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in patients with bvFTD (n = 85), AD (n = 55), and control participants (n = 59). Age- A nd education-adjusted between-group analysis was performed on the total score and indices of discriminative ability and response bias. Correlations between recognition and measures of memory, language, executive functioning, and construction were examined.Results:Patients with AD had a significantly lower total recognition score than patients with bvFTD (control 28.8 ± 1.5; bvFTD 24.8 ± 4.5; AD 23.4 ± 3.6, p <.01). Both bvFTD and AD had worse discriminative ability than controls (A' control 0.96 ± 0.03; bvFTD 0.87 ± 0.03; AD 0.84 ± 0.10, p <.01), but there was no difference in response bias (B" control 0.9 ± 0.2; bvFTD 1.6 ± 1.47; AD 1.4± 1.4, p <.01). AD had worse discriminability than bvFTD (p <.05). Discriminability was associated with memory for both patient groups (median correlation coefficient r =.34) and additionally associated with language (r =.31), but not executive functioning (r =-.03) in bvFTD. Response bias was unrelated to other cognitive functions (r =-.02).Conclusions:Discriminability, but not response bias, differentiated patients with bvFTD from AD. The presence of an impaired discrimination index suggests a "pure" (recognition) memory deficit in bvFTD