This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To test the hypothesis that higher neuronal density in brainstem aminergic nuclei contributes to neural reserve.
Methods: Participants are 165 individuals from the Rush Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal clinical–pathologic cohort study. They completed a mean of 5.8 years of annual evaluations that included a battery of 19 cognitive tests from which a previously established composite measure of global cognition was derived. Upon death, they had a brain autopsy and uniform neuropathologic examination that provided estimates of the density of aminergic neurons in the locus ceruleus, dorsal raphe nucleus, substantia nigra, and ventral tegmental area plus summary measures of neuronal neurofibrillary tangles and Lewy bodies from these nuclei and medial temporal lobe and neocortex.
Results: Neuronal densities in each nucleus were approximately normally distributed. In separate analyses, higher neuronal density in each nucleus except the ventral tegmental area was associated with slower rate of cognitive decline, but when modeled together only locus ceruleus neuronal density was related to cognitive decline (estimate = 0.003, SE = 0.001, p < 0.001). Higher densities of tangles and Lewy bodies in these brainstem nuclei were associated with faster cognitive decline even after controlling for pathologic burden elsewhere in the brain. Locus ceruleus neuronal density, brainstem tangles, and brainstem Lewy bodies had independent associations with rate of cognitive decline. In addition, at higher levels of locus ceruleus neuronal density, the association of Lewy bodies with cognitive decline was diminished.
Conclusion: Density of noradrenergic neurons in the locus ceruleus may be a structural component of neural reserve.
GLOSSARY
- AD=
- Alzheimer disease
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Editorial, page 1180
See page 1194
- Received September 26, 2012.
- Accepted November 26, 2012.
- © 2013 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.