4.7 Article

Reduced cortical thickness in hippocampal subregions among cognitively normal apolipoprotein E e4 carriers

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 1177-1183

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.039

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG13308, P01 AG025831-030003, R01 AG013308-12, R01 AG013308-11A2, P01 AG025831-020003, P01 AG025831-040003, P01 AG025831, P01-AG024831, P50 AG016570, P01 AG025831-010003, R01 AG013308, P50-AG16570] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [F32 NS050067] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our objective was to investigate whether asymptomatic carriers of apolipoprotein E e4 [APOE-4] demonstrate pathological differences and atrophy in medial temporal lobe (MTL) subregions. We measured cortical thickness and volume in MTL subregions (hippocampal CA fields 1, 2 and 3; dentate gyrus; entorhinal cortex; subiculum; perirhinal cortex; parahippocampal cortex; and fusiform gyrus) using a high-resolution in-plane (0.4 x 0.4 mm) MRI sequence in 30 cognitively normal volunteers (14 APOE-4 carriers, 16 non-carriers, mean age 57 years). A cortical unfolding procedure maximized the visibility of this convoluted cortex, providing cortical ribbon thickness measures throughout individual subregions of the hippocampus and surrounding cortex. APOE-4 carriers had reduced cortical thickness compared with non-carriers in entorhinal cortex (ERC) and the subiculum (Sub), but not in the main hippocampal body or perirhinal cortex. Average cortical thickness was 14.8% lower (p = 1.0e(-6)) for ERC and 12.6% lower (p = 6.8e(-5)) for Sub in APOE-4 carriers. Standard volumetric measures of the same regions showed similar, but non-significant trends. Cognitively intact carriers of APOE-4 show regionally specific thinning of the cortical ribbon compared to APOE-3 carriers; cortical thickness may be a more sensitive measure of pathological differences in genetic risk subjects than standard volumetry. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据