Abstract
Background Amongst different subtypes of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), semantic dementia (SD, also known as the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia, svPPA), is the least likely to have a genetic basis.
Methods Our study had two aims: (i) to describe two SD cases and detailed assessments of their unaffected monozygotic (MZ) twins, and (ii) to review cases with FTD-associated mutations or known family history classified as SD/svPPA either in the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI) or in the published literature.
Results The two affected twins displayed characteristic features of SD, both in neuroimaging and cognition, whereas their MZ twins exhibited no abnormalities in either regard, even up to 15 years of follow-up for one affected twin. Only five cases out of more than 1300 people in GENFI were classified as svPPA, with a genetic mutation. The systematic review revealed 29 cases with sufficient clinical and language details regarding ‘genetic’ SD/svPPA. A comparison of these five GENFI and 29 literature cases to the patterns observed in a large number of sporadic cases revealed critical differences in presentation.
Conclusions Both parts of our study suggest that true SD/svPPA is unlikely to have an autosomal dominant genetic aetiology and that, while mutation carriers may resemble SD/svPPA in some respects, they may not meet current clinical diagnostic criteria for this condition.
What is already known on this topic: Approximately 30% of all frontotemporal dementia cases are associated with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance but the reported prevalence of mutation in semantic dementia/semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia (SD/svPPA) is very low.
What this study adds: From (a) outlining the discordance for SD/svPPA in two pairs of monozygotic twins and (b) comparing the clinical and cognitive profiles of people who had been classified as SD/svPPA with an FTD-associated genetic mutation versus sporadic SD/svPPA, we conclude that true SD/svPPA is unlikely to have an autosomal dominant genetic aetiology.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy: Our study highlights gaps in the understanding of environmental and epigenetic influences on sporadic SD/svPPA and a need for further unbiased genotyping and phenotyping of SD/svPPA and “SD-like” syndromes.
Open access: For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work and the first author (SKH) were supported and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, and Gates Cambridge Trust (Grant Number: OPP1144). This study was supported by the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-Plus; the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00030/14; MR/P01271X/1; MR/T033371/1); the Wellcome Trust (220258); the National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Clinical Research Facility and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; NIHR203312); an MRC Programme grant to MALR (MR/R023883/1) and an intramural award (MC_UU_00005/18); and MRC Career Development Award (MR/V031481/1). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Twin data were acquired under the PrEPPAReD protocol, approved by the Cambridge 2 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 07/Q0102/3; Title: Prospective Evaluation of Parkinson Plus & Related Disorders, formerly entitled: Diagnosis and prognosis in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP), Corticobasal degeneration (CBD) and Dementia). The affected twins had provided consent to research before losing mental capacity and the decision to include them in research after the loss of mental capacity was affirmed by their personal consultee as set out in the Health and Social Care Framework law for England and Wales. All healthy participants provided written informed consent. For data acquisition of genetic participants, all GENFI sites had local ethical approval for the study from relevant institutional review board or research ethics committee and all participants provided written informed consent. Analyses of GENFI data were conducted under the Cambridge Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative protocol approved by the Cambridge 2 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 17/EE/0032; title: Cambridge Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
