Postmortem evaluation reveals significant proteinopathy correlations with age and APOE genotype.
Background The Lieber Institute for Brain Development (LIBD) has one of the largest postmortem human brain banks for the study of neuropsychiatric disorders in the world. The postmortem evaluation involves neuropathological assessment for age-related protein accumulations, specifically phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid-β (Aβ). Objective Present the LIBD semiquantitative assessment methodology for p-tau and Aβ by comparing proteinopathy by age and by apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) genotype. Methods Postmortem brain tissue samples were from 1509 people aged 50 or greater (median age at death = 63 years; range = 50–102). Seven brain regions (four neocortical areas, hippocampal formation, midbrain, and cerebellum) were examined by routine histopathology, p-tau immunohistochemistry (AT8; hippocampus and four neocortical samples), and Aβ immunohistochemistry (BAM01; four neocortical samples). APOE genotyping was performed in a subgroup. Semiquantitative assessments include modified CERAD (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease) and modified Braak approaches. Results There were 63.8% rated as B1 (modified Braak I or II), 30.4% rated as B2 (modified Braak III or IV), and 5.8% rated as B3 (modified Braak V or VI). For those in their early 70 s, half had modified Braak stage III-IV ratings. For decedents in their 80 s, approximately 1 in 4 had modified Braak stage V-VI ratings. Aβ was present in 48.8% (C0 = 51.2%, C1 = 17.2%, C2 = 24.5%, and C3 = 7.1%). Age and APOE genotype were significant predictors of Aβ plaques. Conclusions The LIBD protocol assessing p-tau and Aβ burden identified significant associations with age and APOE genotype. More research is needed to understand the spectrum of age-related proteinopathy versus neurodegenerative disease neuropathology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Castellani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: