Single‐nuclei transcriptomic identifies type‐specific neuronal cell vulnerability and non‐neuronal molecular changes in Amnestic and Logopenic Variant Primary Progressive Aphasia Alzheimer’s disease
Felipe Luiz Pereira, Caroline Lew, Song Hua Li, Alexander Soloviev, Salvatore Spina, William W. Seeley, Claudia Kimie Suemoto, Renata Elaine Paraizo Leite, Kathy L Newell, Bernardino Francesco Ghetti, Melissa E. Murray, Lea T. Grinberg- Psychiatry and Mental health
- Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
- Geriatrics and Gerontology
- Neurology (clinical)
- Developmental Neuroscience
- Health Policy
- Epidemiology
Abstract
Background
Individuals with neuropathological criteria for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may manifest with atypical clinical syndromes. Past work showed that the neurobiological basis for these differences is related to specific neuronal vulnerabilities for tau pathology. For instance, amnestic cases have a higher burden of neurofibrillary changes in CA1. In contrast, logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) cases have a higher tau burden in the superior temporal gyrus (STG). Single‐cell technology enables investigations on the molecular basis of differential neuronal vulnerability in AD. Therefore, we investigated factors underlying selective vulnerability using brain samples from individuals with pure AD with different clinical manifestations.
Method
snRNA Sequencing using the Chromium Single Cell 3′ (10X Genomics, USA) on nuclei cells extracted from the CA1 sector and posterior STG of postmortem brain tissue of 24 individuals either meeting pathological criteria for AD (A3B3C3; 12 amnestic and eight lvPPA) and healthy controls (A≤1B≤1C≤1; n = 4) (Table 1, Fig. 1A/B). Bioinformatics analyses were conducted using Cell Ranger and R software. Comparisons between cell subpopulations were conducted with Wald statistical test, and p‐values < .05 were considered significant.
Result
After quality control, we recovered 98,180 nuclei with a mean of 2,130 genes per nuclei. Upon cross‐sample alignment and t‐stochastic neighborhood embedding clustering (Fig. 1C), we found 21 excitatory neuronal subpopulations (Exc‐sub) in CA1 and 26 in STG, and 22 and 27 inhibitory neuronal subpopulations (Inh‐sub) in CA1 and STG, respectively; 16 astrocytes subpopulations in both areas and 20 microglia subpopulations in CA1 and 17 in STG (Fig. 2). One STG Exc‐sub, expressing CUX2 and LAMP5 genes showed vulnerability in lvPPA patients. Also, one STG Inh‐sub, expressing the ADARB2 gene, showed vulnerability for all AD patients. Furthermore, two astrocytes subpopulations (one in both areas and one in STG) and three STG microglia subpopulations showed proportional composition changes comparing AD patients and HC.
Conclusion
Our preliminary study identified a vulnerable population of excitatory neurons related to lvPPA. We are conducting validation studies using quantitative pathology to confirm these results. Furthermore, analysis of a higher number of cases is ongoing and will continue to inform on factors associated with neuronal vulnerability.