Cortical Tau Aggregation Patterns associated with Apraxia in Alzheimer‘s Disease

Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is commonly strongly associated symptomatically with typical cognitive deficits such as memory loss, language and orientation problems and the loss of executive functions, whereas motor deficits are often less in the focus of clinical assessment. However, loss of higher order motor functions in particular is not uncommon in this disease. In particular, apraxia has been reported to be a core feature of AD, with a prevalence ranging from 35% in mild cases to 98% in severe cases (Lesourd et al., 2013). Generally, apraxia is defined as the “inability to perform specific and predefined actions or to execute learned and purposeful movements, independent of sensory, motor and (other) cognitive deficits” (Osiurak & Rossetti, 2017). Even in mild stages of the disease, the pattern of apraxic deficits can even help to distinguish the different variants of frontotemporal lobar degeneration and AD (Johnen et al., 2015, 2018). Apraxia can be considered to represent a highly relevant disability, as it can lead to impairment in activities of daily living and, thus, contribute to increasing care needs and loss of patient independence. Despite the high prevalence and clinical relevance of apraxia in AD, its pathomechanisms remain largely unresolved. Specific therapeutic options for apraxia remain generally sparse (Dovern et al., 2012). Current disease concepts of apraxia often rely heavily on evidence derived from studies on stroke. Apraxia is typically not considered to be a disorder of the core motor system which includes the primary motor cortex, basal ganglia, and cerebellum (i.e., not due to basic motor deficits such as paresis, ataxia, rigidity or tremor).

Instead, it is thought to result from a higher-order motor dysfunction of specific parieto-frontal praxis networks that constitute the praxis system (i.e., ventro-/dorso-dorsal and ventral action processing streams), or from a deficient interaction between the praxis networks and (praxis-related) cognitive networks (Goodale & Milner, 1992; Rizzolatti & Matelli, 2003). Apraxia is therefore often considered to be a higher-order motor-cognitive disorder. It is still unclear whether these concepts also apply to apraxia in AD, especially since there are very fundamental differences with the pathogenesis of stroke.

Apraxia in AD does not result from a on sudden neuronal injury, but rather from an insidious and progressive neurodegenerative process, leading to a gradual loss of function. In addition, AD pathology is typically bilateral and does not follow vascular territories. Importantly, AD neurodegeneration has often been thought to largely spare cerebral motor regions. Finally, the underlying neuropathologies are not comparable (i.e., ischemic injury in stroke versus protein aggregation pathologies in AD, involving amyloid plaques and tau tangles leading to neurodegenerative damage). Therefore, it seems important to analyze the molecular basis of apraxia in AD, to improve understanding of the underlying pathomechanisms and to possibly to open a different perspective on the development of apraxia in general.

Previous studies in AD suggest that tau-pathology in particular impairs with neuronal function in the brain in a region-specific manner (Dronse et al., 2016), as hyperphoshorylated tau-proteins dissolve from the microtubuli, aggregate intraneuronally in the form of neurofibrils, and are thought to contribute to local neuronal dysfunction. Modern in-vivo molecular imaging techniques, using positron emission tomography (PET) can non-invasively detect tau-aggregations in the human brain (Bischof et al., 2016). These methods may therefore be able to establish a specific link between regional AD-specific neuropathology and the resulting symptomatic deficits. In a recent study, we have already shown increased tau deposition in higher motor regions of patients with biomarker-verified AD pathology (Bischof et al., 2024). Analyzing tau PET scans from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort, we investigated how tau pathology in cytoarchitectonically mapped regions of the motor network varies across the clinical spectrum of AD. We were able to demonstrate significant tau pathology in predominantly higher motor regions in AD (e.g., supplementary motor area, superior parietal lobe, angular gyrus and dorsal premotor cortex, i.e., regions that have often been neglected). Based on these findings, we hypothesized that tau pathology, in praxis-related brain motor networks may contribute to apraxic deficits in AD (Bischof et al., 2024). We also suggested that the spatial heterogeneity of AD-pathology may contribute to the variability of apraxia severity in AD.

To test these hypotheses, we aimed to systematically assess apraxia in a well-defined group of patients with AD and correlate the results with data derived from tau-PET imaging in these individuals. To this end, we recruited a group of biomarker-confirmed patients with AD, who had been thoroughly characterized by neuropsychological assessment including systematic apraxia profiling using the Dementia Apraxia Test (DATE; (Johnen et al., 2018)) and the Cologne Apraxia Screening (KAS; (Latarnik et al., 2022; Wirth et al., 2016)). To reduce heterogeneity in the data, we planned to focus on patients with classical limb apraxia (deficits in gesture, imitation, pantomime, and actual object use), excluding other forms such as speech or gait apraxia. We performed standardized tau-PET imaging experiments in this population. For this purpose, we used the second-generation tau-PET tracer [18]F-PI-2620, which does not show relevant non-specific binding in the basal ganglia (Brendel et al., 2020), and evaluated how tau patterns in AD is associated with apraxia deficits.

With these experiments, we hoped to increase our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the apraxic deficits in AD at the molecular level, and thus contribute to a better pathophysiological understanding that will also allow more sound diagnostic classification of this severe dysfunction.

Methods

Materials

Imaging analysis

Mean deviation maps to display the typical pattern of AD tau pathology were created in SPM12. Individual z-maps from the AD sample were averaged using the Imcalc function (mean(X)). The resulting average map (see Results Figure 1a) were overlayed on the fsaverage image provided in the computational anatomy toolbox (CAT12) (http://dbm.neuro.unijena.de/cat/).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Caption: Results of the mean image of the deviation maps of the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) population (1a). Results from the two multiple regression models for the Dementia Apraxia Screening Test; DATE (1b) and the Cologne Apraxia Test (KAS) (1c). Family-wise error correction (FWE). Result maps are overlayed on a surface brain. Colo-Scale indicates z-values range in the voxels.

Voxel-based regression analysis

For voxel-based analysis, individual z-deviation maps were subjected to multiple regression analysis in SPM12. Two separate models were constructed to fit the following equations:

The statistical threshold was set at p = 0.05 with a family-wise error correction cluster threshold to account for multiple comparisons. The main contrast of interest was set to assess voxels of tau pathology associated with apraxia severity (DATE z-scores and KAS z-scores respectively), controlling for potential age differences. Results were overlaid on the Hammersmith Brain Atlas (Hammers et al., 2003) to quantify the percentage overlap of each significant cluster with anatomically derived regions.

Results

Participant characteristics for the behavioral and imaging samples are shown in Table 1. One outlier from the AD cohort was removed, due to significant deviation (> 3SD) in both DATE and KAS scores. Adhering to the classification guidelines proposed by (Folstein et al., 2000), the majority of the sample of AD patients showed mild (N = 19; 61%) general cognitive decline, whereas a small proportion displayed moderate (N = 4; 2%) decline. Eight patients (N=8; 25 %) showed no impairment on global cognitive decline (MMSE > 26) despite biomarker positivity. Notably, none of the current patients was classified as having severe cognitive decline (MMSE < 10).

AD patients differed from the behavioral CU sample (CU₁) in the MMSE and Apraxia scores (all p < .001), but groups did not differ significantly in age (t (69) = -.89, p = .37) or in the distribution of biological sex (X²(1, N=72) = 3.17, p = .07).

The range of deficits on the DATE test varied in the AD sample from 25 to 60, with 45 being the cut-off for significant motor impairment and 45 % of the sample scored below this cut-off. The KAS cut-off for apraxia is set at 76 and the range in the AD sample varied from 59 to 80, with 64 % of the sample showing apraxic deficits. Although some variation of motor impairment was found in the sample, the majority of people with Alzheimer’s disease had apraxia deficits on the KAS.

Both, the AD sample did not significantly differ from cognitively control samples (CU₁ & CU₂) in age (t (83) = -1.57, p = .12) or in the distribution of males and females within the group (X²(1, N=85) = 2.91, p = .08). Finally, age and sex also did not differ between the two control samples (i.e., CU₁ & CU₂) (t (92) = -.64, p = .52; X²(1, N=95) = 0.34, p = .85). Thus, both CU samples were sufficiently well matched to the AD sample.

Figure 1a shows the mean deviation map across all AD patients, which corresponds to the mean pattern of tau pathology that is distinct from the pattern of the group of cognitively unimpaired individuals (CU₂). The spatial pattern of increased tau pathology included temporal regions, precuenus and cingulate cortex as well as inferior and superior parietal and rostral middle frontal and lateral orbitofrontal regions which is in correspondence to the spatial aggregation of tau in AD. No significant tau aggregation (i.e., z-score >2) was observed in basal ganglia in this analysis.

Discussion

In the current study, we were able to demonstrate for the first time that apraxic deficits in AD are associated with specific cortical tau deposition. Some affected brain regions (i.e. supramarginal gyrus, parietal regions, angular gyrus) are well-known for their involvement in praxis function (Martin et al., 2017b). This suggests that tau deposition in these brain regions may induce local neuronal dysfunction, leading to a dose-dependent functional decline in praxis performance. Importantly, we did not observe significant tau tracer retention in primary motor regions or the basal ganglia of patients, supporting the notion that apraxia in Alzheimer’s disease represents a higher-order motor dysfunction and is not caused by failure of the core primary motor system or subcortical involvement of the disease. We have recently demonstrated the involvement of tau pathology in motor regions in the context of AD severity (Bischof et al., 2024), whereas the current finding are extending our previous work by showing a direct association with apraxia symptomatology.

The group comparison of tau tracer uptake between AD and control subjects as quantified in the z-deviation map revealed a pattern of significant tau deposition in the brain, with maxima in brain regions including precuenus, posterior cingulate temporal pole, enthorinal cortex and inferior temporal regions, suggesting the group pattern of tau pathology extends beyond Braak III (Braak et al., 2011) . The pattern is consistent with previously described typical distribution patterns of tau pathology observed in AD (Bischof et al., 2016; Ossenkoppele et al., 2016; Schöll et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). These results serve as an indication that the included AD-population can be considered a representative sample and also that the employed control group used is suitable for statistical comparison.

Our findings are consistent with results from other studies, demonstrating high regional variance of tau-deposition patterns in AD and symptom-dependent association with tau-deposition in function-related brain regions (Bejanin et al., 2017; Brier et al., 2016; Vogel et al., 2021). First, an association has been shown between the overall severity of cognitive decline (as assessed by the Mini Mental Status Examination/MMSE) and tau burden, as measured in a large cortical meta-ROI as well as in the lateral temporal cortex (Bejanin et al., 2017; Boccalini et al., 2024; Brier et al., 2016). Importantly, pronounced tau-deposition in individual brain regions has been associated not only with overall cognitive impairment but also with specific decline of different cognitive functions associated with the respective brain areas (Dronse et al., 2016; Ossenkoppele et al., 2016). In particular, this refers to atypical variants of Alzheimer’s disease. These subtypes are defined by characteristic symptomatic features such as visual problems in the posterior cortical atrophy subtype, language problems in the logopenic aphasia subtype, or executive function problems in the frontal variant. Interestingly, the clinical symptomatic variability of these atypical forms of AD has been shown to be reflected in corresponding variation in the distribution of tau aggregation as measured by tau PET. Specifically, posterior/visual cortical regions were clearly affected in posterior cortical atrophy, asymmetric left hemispheric temporal accumulation was observed in logopenic aphasia, and pronounced frontal tau aggregation was observed in the frontal-executive variant, whereas bilateral tau tracer uptake in temporoparietal regions characterized typical AD (Dronse et al., 2016; Ossenkoppele et al., 2016; Phillips et al., 2018). Consequently, the authors of these publications concluded that the regional distribution of tau PET findings was strongly associated with the clinical and anatomical heterogeneity of Alzheimer’s disease.

Against this background, it seems plausible that the expression of apraxia, representing a motor symptom of Alzheimer’s disease, was found to be associated with tau aggregation in the corresponding function-relevant cortical brain regions. Tau-aggregation in regions belonging to the praxis networks showed a consistent correlation with apraxia severity as measured by two different rating scales (DATE and KAS), including the posterior temporal lobes, supramarginal gyrus, angular gyrus, and higher-order visual areas such as the lateral occipital cortex. The supramarginal cortex has been assigned to the ventro-dorsal processing stream/praxis network, which has been discussed to process action knowledge required for a proper tool/object manipulation (Kleineberg et al., 2018). The angular gyrus itself is considered to be relevant even for more than one praxis processing streams (Martin et al., 2017c). Additionally, posterior middle temporal gyrus/ middle occipital gyrus are part of the praxis network (Martin et al., 2017a) and do partially overlap with the clusters identified in the temporal and occipital regions here. Thus, a causal link between tau-induced neuronal dysfunction in these regions and observed apraxia symptoms appears in fact possible.

Importantly, the detected clusters do not overlap with brain regions where tau deposition has been associated with overall severity of cognitive decline, such as the lateral temporal cortex (Boccalini et al., 2024). Also, the parts of the praxis network involved are not among the brain regions affected by tau pathology early in the disease course (such as entorhinal cortex, Brodman area 35, neocortical temporal cortex (Berron et al., 2021)). It is therefore less likely that the associations found are simply due to more advanced tau deposition in the affected regions as the disease progresses.

To our knowledge, the severity of apraxia in Alzheimer’s disease has not previously been associated with specific regional tau pathology in Alzheimer’s disease. However, in a previous study by Palleis and colleagues, the tracer [18F]PI-2620 was used to distinguish subtypes of corticobasal syndrome (CBS) (Palleis et al., 2021). Higher tau levels, particularly in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, were observed in amyloid-positive CBS patients compared with an amyloid-negative group. Patients were also assessed for apraxia using the DATE. Interestingly, apraxia was found to be significantly more prominent in amyloid-positive than in amyloid-negative forms of CBS, supporting the notion that Alzheimer’s pathology is not infrequently associated with apraxia symptoms. In this population, however, no correlation between tracer retention and DATE apraxia scores was found. This may be due to the relatively small sample size of N=11 amyloid-positive subjects and/or lower symptom variation in this group of CBS. In this previous study, in both amyloid-positive and -negative CBS patients distinct tau-deposition in basal ganglia was observed (Palleis et al., 2021), which was not found in our current sample of AD patients.

Consistently, our study did not initially include patients with symptomatology consistent with CBS, but rather patients fulfilling criteria for typical AD (Jack et al., 2018). In particular, the difference in tau deposition in the basal ganglia between our sample and the group of CBS patients (studied with the same PET tracer) strongly supports the impression that AD with apraxia represents a distinct subtype and is not synonymous with amyloid-positive CBS. It can be considered a strength of the current study, that the employed tracer [18F]PI-2620 allows the assessment of tau-aggregation not only in the cortex but also in the basal ganglia, due to lacking non-specific uptake in these regions (Brendel et al., 2020).

This made it possible to demonstrate that motor deficits in AD can occur without the involvement of primary motor cortical (e.g., primary motor cortex) or subcortical (i.e., basal ganglia) brain regions. In our group of patients, apraxia was a surprisingly common finding, with abnormal scores detected in 64% of cases in the KAS and 45 % in the DATE. The severity of apraxia was not generally mild, but reached marked levels on the DATE and KAS, reflecting relevant disability. These findings underline that apraxia is a common symptom in Alzheimer’s disease that may require increased diagnostic attention and possibly therapeutic strategies. Cases with very dominant apraxia may even be considered to represent an "apraxic variant" of AD.

The current study has some limitations. First, the sample size of patients was still relatively small. However, all enrolled patients were well characterized and carefully matched to a set of controls. Nevertheless, replication of the results in larger samples of AD patients may be warranted.

We sampled different CU control groups to evaluate behavioral age-related apraxia scores and age-related tau pathology in amyloid negative individuals. Although these CU samples were matched by age-and sex to the target population, the different samples of CU individuals may have introduced a bias and our data may be less generalizable. The z-score deviation analyses approach however provided us with the same scale for both tau-pathology and apraxic score, which may reduce the influence on the different samples somewhat.

Finally, the CU₂ sample, that provided the basis for the z-deviation analyses of the AD images, were scanned on a different scanner equipment compared to the AD cohort. Such differences can introduce a methodological bias which we tried to reduce by applying a smoothing kernel, and a standard matrix normalization, following pr-preprocessing steps from ADNI to reduce differences in scanners (Jagust et al., 2015).

In conclusion, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to show a specific correlation of tau aggregation in praxis-related brain regions with the symptom of apraxia in a well characterized group of Alzheimer’s patients. The results suggest that tau in affected brain regions may contribute to local neuronal dysfunction and resulting functional deficits. Knowledge of these correlations could be taken into account in the diagnostic work-up and contribute to a better characterization and classification of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

Conflict of Interest

AD reports Research support: Siemens Healthineers, Life Molecular Imaging, GE Healthcare, AVID Radiopharmaceuticals, Sofie, Eisai, Novartis/AAA, Ariceum Therapeutics Speaker Honorary/Advisory Boards: Siemens Healthineers, Sanofi, GE Healthcare, Biogen, Novo Nordisk, Invicro, Novartis/AAA, Bayer Vital, Lilly Stock: Siemens Healthineers, Lantheus Holding, Structured therapeutics, Lilly Patents: Patent for 18F-JK-PSMA- 7 (Patent No.: EP3765097A1; Date of patent: Jan. 20, 2021).