Skip to content

Advertisement

Translational Neurodegeneration

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

Specific serum antibody binding to phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau in non-cognitively impaired, mildly cognitively impaired, and Alzheimer’s disease subjects: an exploratory study

  • Andrea C. Klaver1,
  • Mary P. Coffey2,
  • David A. Bennett3 and
  • David A. Loeffler1Email author
Translational Neurodegeneration20176:32

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40035-017-0100-x

Received: 24 August 2017

Accepted: 30 October 2017

Published: 24 November 2017

Abstract

Background

Tau vaccination and administration of anti-tau antibodies can prevent pathology and cognitive impairment in transgenic mouse models of tauopathy, suggesting that therapies which increase anti-tau antibodies might slow the development and/or progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The extent to which individuals with no cognitive impairment (NCI) possess serum anti-tau antibodies, and whether their concentrations of these antibodies differ from anti-tau antibody levels in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD, are unclear. Previous studies measuring these antibodies did not account for antibody polyvalent binding, which can be extensive, nor that antibody binding to phosphorylated tau peptides could be due to binding to non-phosphorylated epitopes on those peptides.

Methods

An ELISA controlling for these factors was used to measure the specific binding of serum IgG and IgM to phosphorylated (“pTau;” phosphorylated at Serine-199 and Serine-202) and non-phosphorylated (“non-pTau”) tau 196-207 in subjects with NCI, MCI, or AD (n = 10/group). Between-group differences in these antibody levels were evaluated for statistical significance, and correlations were examined in pooled data from all subjects between these antibody levels and subject age, global cognitive functioning, and NFT counts.

Results

Specific IgG binding to pTau and non-pTau was detected in all subjects except for one NCI control. Specific IgM binding was detected to pTau in all subjects except for two AD patients, and to non-pTau in all subjects. Mean pTau IgG was increased in MCI subjects by 53% and 70% vs. AD and NCI subjects respectively (both p < 0.05), while no significant differences were found between groups for non-pTau IgG (p = 0.052), pTau IgM, or non-pTau IgM. Non-pTau IgG was negatively associated with global cognition (Spearman rho = −0.50).

Conclusions

Specific binding of serum IgG and IgM to phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau may be present in older persons regardless of their cognitive status. Serum IgG to phosphorylated tau may be increased in individuals with MCI, but this unexpected finding requires confirmation. The approach used in this study to measure specific serum antibodies to phosphorylated tau should be useful for measuring antibodies to other post-translationally-modified proteins that are of relevance to neurodegenerative disorders.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s diseaseAntibodiesElisa ELISAMild cognitive impairmentPhosphorylated tau

Background

Tau protein-containing neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) and amyloid-β (Aβ)-containing plaques are the main pathological findings in the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) brain. Tau is found primarily in neurons where it binds to tubulin; this binding facilitates tubulin’s assembly into microtubules, permitting neurite extension and stabilization [1]. Although tau is minimally phosphorylated in adults without cognitive impairment, its phosphorylation increases (“hyperphosphorylation”) in AD [2]. Tau’s hyperphosphorylation reduces its binding to tubulin [3], resulting in decreased axonal transport of vesicles and organelles [4] which may cause neuronal damage. Hyperphosphorylated tau’s ability to sequester normal tau and other microtubule-associated proteins may also contribute to its neurotoxic effects [5, 6]. Tau’s hyperphosphorylation promotes its aggregation [7], which is clinically relevant because soluble oligomers may be tau’s most neurotoxic conformation [8, 9].

Since the amyloid hypothesis was proposed [10], lowering of brain Aβ has been the main focus of experimental AD therapies. But the failure of this approach to slow disease progression in large randomized clinical trials has increased interest in targeting of AD’s tau pathology. Tau aggregates are present in the AD brain as NFTs, neuropil threads, and dystrophic neurites [11]. The significance of NFT formation in AD is uncertain because NFT-containing neurons can survive for decades [12].

In transgenic mouse models of tauopathy, tau pathology and its cognitive deficits can be prevented by vaccination with tau [1316] or by administration of anti-tau antibodies [1721]. These findings provided the rationale for a phase 1 AD trial of a tau vaccine whose results suggested that the vaccine was safe and immunogenic [22]. A phase 2 tau vaccination trial began in 2016. Studies have found that anti-tau antibodies can impair tau’s aggregation [23], facilitate microglial uptake and degradation of pathological tau aggregates [24], and inhibit the neurotoxic effects and neuron-to-neuron spreading of paired helical filament (PHF)-tau [25, 26]. Some anti-tau antibodies may also inhibit tau phosphorylation [27, 28].

The extent to which serum anti-tau antibodies are produced in older individuals without apparent cognitive impairments, and whether their levels of these antibodies differ from those in individuals with MCI or AD, are unclear. A recent study [29] evaluated peripheral blood B lymphocytes from 120 healthy subjects for reactivity to a panel of phosphorylated tau peptides. Fifty-two anti-tau antibodies were identified, 26 of which appeared to be specific for phosphorylated tau. These results were suggested to represent an ongoing immune response against tau in these healthy individuals. Rosenmann et al. [30], measuring IgG and IgM to phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau, reported increased IgM levels to phosphorylated tau in AD patients compared to healthy subjects. Bartos et al. [31], measuring serum IgG antibodies to bovine tau protein (which would have contained phosphorylated amino acid residues, unlike recombinant human tau which is non-phosphorylated [32]), found similar levels between AD patients, individuals with other dementias, control subjects with neuroinflammatory conditions, and healthy subjects. Although both studies used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), neither study distinguished between antibody’s specific binding to tau and its polyvalent binding, which is also specific [33] but includes binding to multiple antigens such as surface epitopes on ELISA plate wells or wells coated with irrelevant proteins. We reported that polyvalent binding of human immunoglobulins (which we referred to as nonspecific binding) can result in overestimation of specific antibody levels measured by ELISA [3436]. The study by Rosenmann et al. [30] also did not account for the possibility that the serum antibody binding which was detected to phosphorylated tau (tau peptide 195-213, phosphorylated at tau 202/205) could have been due, at least in part, to antibody binding to non-phosphorylated epitopes on the tau peptide. Using an ELISA which controlled for polyvalent binding, we detected specific antibodies (IgG) to non-phosphorylated tau (recombinant human tau-441, 2N4R) in three intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) products [35]. However, in a later study using an ELISA which also controlled for binding to non-phosphorylated epitopes on phosphorylated tau, we found specific antibodies to a phosphorylated tau peptide in only three of six IVIG preparations [37]. This result raised questions about the presence of specific anti-phospho-tau antibodies in healthy individuals, leading to the present investigation. This was an exploratory study whose primary goal was to determine the frequency of specific serum IgG and IgM binding to a phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau peptide (the same tau peptide that was used in our earlier IVIG study [37]) in individuals with NCI, MCI, or AD. The secondary goal in this study was to compare the specific anti-tau antibody levels between these diagnostic groups. We used an ELISA which controlled for polyvalent antibody binding and for antibody binding to non-phosphorylated epitopes on phosphorylated tau.

Methods

Study subjects

Serum samples were obtained from the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center (Chicago, IL, USA) from individuals participating in the Religious Orders Study [38] or the Rush Memory and Aging Project [39]. These are community-based studies of aging and AD which were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Rush University Medical Center. The clinical diagnoses proximate to death, based on review of clinical data blinded to neuropathologic findings, for the subjects in the present study were NCI, MCI, or AD (n = 10/group). AD patients had no other apparent cause of cognitive impairment. A global cognitive functioning score [40] was calculated for all subjects from 19 tests covering five domains: episodic memory, semantic memory, working memory, perceptual orientation, and perceptual speed. Raw scores for each test were converted to z-scores, then averaged. NFT counts were obtained during post-mortem neuropathological examination; these were mean values for NFT cortical density (per mm2) detected by immunocytochemical staining with monoclonal antibody AT8 [41] in the hippocampus and entorhinal, midfrontal, inferior temporal, angular, calcarine, anterior cingulate, and superior frontal cortices. Mean counts were transformed by square root to produce more normally distributed data. The study enrolled only persons without known dementia, therefore all subjects signed an informed consent and an Anatomical Gift Act for organ donation. De-identified serum samples were sent from the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center to the Neurology Research Laboratory at Beaumont Hospital-Royal Oak (parent organization: Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI, USA) where anti-tau antibodies were measured. The present research study was given exempt status by the Institutional Review Board of Beaumont Health.

Measurement of specific anti-tau antibodies

Anti-tau antibodies in NCI, MCI, and AD sera were measured by ELISA using methods similar to those that we reported previously for measuring antibodies to phosphorylated tau in IVIG [37]. Tau peptide 196-207, phosphorylated (“pTau”) or non-phosphorylated (“non-pTau”) at Serine-199 and Serine-202, was used as the antigen for antibody detection. These peptides were chemically synthesized by the Tufts University Core Facility (Tufts Medical School, Boston, MA, USA), using Fmoc (Fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl chloride) - protected amino acids and Fastmoc chemistry on an ABI 431 Peptide Synthesizer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Serum samples were diluted 1:100 in phosphate-buffered saline (0.01 M, pH 7.2) with 1% BSA and 0.5% Tween-20 (hereafter, PBS-T-BSA) and evaluated in quadruplicate for anti-tau IgG and in triplicate for anti-tau IgM in wells coated with pTau, non-pTau, or BSA. To account for polyvalent antibody binding [33], the optical density [OD] values that developed in wells in which serum samples were incubated on BSA-coated wells were subtracted from the OD values of the wells in which the samples were incubated on pTau- and non-pTau-coated wells. ELISAs measuring IgG binding to pTau or non-pTau included a standard curve with rabbit anti-pS199 polyclonal antibody (GenScript, Piscataway, NJ, USA) diluted four-fold in PBS-T-BSA from 1:62.5 (8000 ng/mL) to 1:16,000 (31.25 ng/mL). No standard curve was included in ELISAs measuring anti-tau IgM because commercial anti-tau IgM was not available; as positive controls, GenScript’s rabbit anti-pS199 antibody (phospho-tau specific; 1:160 in PBS-T-BSA) and AnaSpec’s rabbit anti-tau 194-214 IgG (AnaSpec Inc., Fremont, CA, USA; non-phospho-tau specific; 1:160 in PBS-T-BSA) were incubated on wells coated with 50 μg/mL of pTau, non-pTau, or BSA (three wells per condition). As a negative control, two wells per condition in IgG ELISAs and three wells per condition in IgM ELISAs were incubated with PBS-T-BSA instead of NCI, MCI, or AD sera. Plates were developed by incubation with biotinylated goat anti-human IgG (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories Inc., West Grove, PA, USA) or biotinylated goat anti-human IgM (Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, MO, USA) followed by streptavidin-alkaline phosphatase (Life Technologies, Rockford, IL, USA) and para-nitrophenol phosphate (Sigma-Aldrich) as reported previously [35, 37]. IgG plates were incubated at room temperature for 2 hr., then read at 405 nm. The standard curve typically reached an OD value between 0.5 - 0.7. IgM plates were incubated at room temperature and read until OD values for the non-pTau-coated wells which had been incubated with rabbit anti-tau 194-214 antibody reached 1.0; this occurred after about 15 min. Mean OD values of wells in which PBS-T-BSA was incubated on pTau, non-pTau, or BSA were subtracted from mean OD values of wells in which serum samples were incubated on tau peptides or BSA. Ratios for IgG and IgM binding of each serum sample to pTau and non-pTau (hereafter, “pTau antibody ratios” and “non-pTau antibody ratios”) were calculated as follows:

antibody binding to pTau peptide:

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\frac{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}\hbox{--} \mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}}{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}\hbox{--} \mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}}\\ {}\mathrm{antibody}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}:\frac{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}}{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}}\end{array}} $$

Antibody binding ratios greater than 1.0 were accepted as evidence for the presence of specific anti-tau antibodies, while ratios less than 1.0 were not considered to indicate specific anti-tau antibodies and were recorded as 1.0 for statistical purposes.

Statistics

Continuous variables whose distribution was approximately normal were summarized with mean and standard deviation while other continuous variables were summarized with median and range. Model diagnostics were examined to assess the reasonableness of the assumptions of normality and equal variances which needed to be satisfied in order to perform analysis of variance (ANOVA). Overall tests of group differences used ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests depending on the reasonableness of the procedure assumptions; either Tukey or Dwass, Steel and Critchlow-Fligner multiple comparison procedures respectively were used if needed to determine the location of pairwise differences. Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient (rho) was used to examine associations between variables. P-values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Analyses used The SAS System for Windows version 9.3 (Cary, NC). Graphs were generated by Minitab release 14 (State College, PA).

Results

Study subjects

Summary statistics for the study subjects are shown in Table 1. The groups were well balanced for age and gender but differed in global cognitive functioning scores. The AD group had lower scores than the other two groups for all cognitive domains; although median cognitive scores for all domains were lower for MCI than for NCI subjects, the differences were statistically significant only for episodic memory (data not shown). AD patients had MMSE scores ranging from 13 to 20 and clinical diagnoses of mild to moderate AD, while MMSE scores in MCI and NCI subjects ranged from 23 to 29 and from 27 to 30 respectively. Mean NFT counts were highest in AD subjects.
Table 1

Demographic, clinical, and neuropathologic characteristics for NCI, MCI, and AD subjects

Variables

NCI (n = 10)

MCI (n = 10)

AD (n = 10)

Age, yrs

88.8 ± 4.8 (81.9 – 96.6)

89.8 ± 3.7 (84.3 – 96.4)

88.5 ± 3.0 (83.6 – 92.0)

% Males

40

40

40

Global cognitive functioning score

0.26 ([−0.15] – [1.12])

−0.21 ([−0.54] – [0.26])

−1.31 ([−3.03] – [−1.08])

MMSE score

28.8 ± 1.1 (27 – 30)

26.1 ± 2.2 (23 – 29)

16.9 ± 2.3 (13 – 20)

NFT counts

3.50 ± 2.68 (0.57 – 8.03)

3.81 ± 2.53 (0.80 – 7.18)

8.14 ± 5.87 (2.13 – 17.55)

Summary statistics for age, MMSE scores, and NFT counts are shown as mean ± SD (top line) and range (bottom line), while global cognitive functioning scores are shown as median (top line) and range (bottom line). (NCI No cognitive impairment, MCI Mild cognitive impairment, AD Alzheimer’s disease, MMSE Mini Mental State Examination, NFT Neurofibrillary tangles)

Binding of serum IgG and IgM to pTau peptide in NCI, MCI, and AD subjects

pTau IgG antibody ratios > 1.0 were found for all study subjects except for one member of the NCI group. The data were distributed reasonably normally for pTau IgG ratios but not for pTau IgM ratios. The mean pTau IgG ratio was increased in MCI subjects by 53% and 70% vs. AD and NCI subjects respectively; there was evidence of between-group differences (p = 0.008), with statistical significance for the pairwise comparisons between the MCI group and the other groups (MCI vs. AD: p = 0.033; MCI vs. NCI: p = 0.01). pTau IgM ratios >1.0 were detected for all NCI and MCI subjects and for eight of the 10 AD patients, with no statistically significant differences in the ratios between the groups (p = 0.79). Summary statistics for the pTau IgG and pTau IgM ratios are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Fig. 1

Binding of serum IgG to pTau peptide in NCI, MCI, and AD subjects. Means (circle), medians (line through center of box), upper and lower quartiles (upper and lower borders of box, respectively), most extreme non-outlier values (lines extending from box), and outliers (asterisks) are shown for pTau IgG ratios in serum samples from NCI, MCI, and AD subjects. “pTau IgG ratio” is the ratio of a serum sample’s specific IgG binding to phosphorylated tau peptide-coated wells divided by its specific IgG binding to non-phosphorylated tau peptide-coated wells: \( \frac{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgG}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}\hbox{--} \mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgG}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}}{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgG}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}\hbox{--} \mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgG}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}} \) ANOVA found evidence of group differences (p = 0.008), with significance at the 0.05 level for the pairwise comparisons between the MCI group and each of the other groups. (NCI = no cognitive impairment; MCI = mild cognitive impairment; AD = Alzheimer’s disease; pTau IgG = specific IgG binding to tau 196-207 phosphorylated at Serine-199 and Serine-202)

Fig. 2

Binding of serum IgM to pTau peptide in NCI, MCI, and AD subjects. Means (circle), medians (line through center of box), upper and lower quartiles (upper and lower borders of box, respectively), most extreme non-outlier values (lines extending from box), and outliers (asterisks) are shown for pTau IgM ratios in serum samples from NCI, MCI, and AD CTL subjects. “pTau IgM ratio” is the ratio of a serum sample’s specific IgM binding to phosphorylated tau peptide-coated wells divided by its specific IgM binding to non-phosphorylated tau peptide-coated wells: \( \frac{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgM}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}\hbox{--} \mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgM}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}}{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgM}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}\hbox{--} \mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgM}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}} \) The overall test of between-group differences was not statistically significant (p = 0.79). (NCI = no cognitive impairment; MCI = mild cognitive impairment; AD = Alzheimer’s disease; pTau IgM = specific IgM binding to tau 196-207 phosphorylated at Serine-199 and Serine-202)

Binding of serum IgG and IgM to non-pTau peptide in NCI, MCI, and AD subjects

Non-pTau IgG ratios > 1.0 were found for all subjects except for one member of the NCI group (the same subject who lacked detectable specific anti-pTau IgG). The data for the non-pTau IgG ratios were abnormally distributed, necessitating the use of a non-parametric procedure (the Kruskal-Wallis test) for examining statistical significance of the overall differences between groups. The p-value for overall differences between groups for the non-pTau IgG ratios was 0.052, with the highest median value in the AD group. Non-pTau IgM ratios > 1.0 were found for all subjects. These ratios were also abnormally distributed. Kruskal-Wallis testing found no differences between the groups (p = 0.26). Summary statistics for the non-pTau IgG and IgM ratios are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
Fig. 3

Binding of serum IgG to non-pTau peptide in NCI, MCI, and AD subjects. Means (circle), medians (line through center of box), upper and lower quartiles (upper and lower borders of box, respectively), most extreme non-outlier values (lines extending from box), and outliers (asterisks) are shown for non-pTau IgG ratios in serum samples from NCI, MCI, and AD subjects. “non-pTau IgG ratio” is the ratio of a serum sample’s IgG binding to non-phosphorylated tau peptide-coated wells divided by its IgG binding to \( \mathrm{BSA}\hbox{-} \mathrm{coated}\ \mathrm{wells}:\frac{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgG}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}}{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgG}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}} \) The p-value for the between-group differences for the antibody ratios was 0.052. (NCI = no cognitive impairment; MCI = mild cognitive impairment; AD = Alzheimer’s disease; non-pTau IgG = specific IgM binding to non-phosphorylated tau 196-207)

Fig. 4

Binding of serum IgM to non-pTau peptide in NCI, MCI, and AD subjects. Means (circle), medians (line through center of box), upper and lower quartiles (upper and lower borders of box, respectively), most extreme non-outlier values (lines extending from box), and outliers (asterisks) are shown for non-pTau IgM ratios in serum samples from NCI, MCI, and AD subjects. “non-pTau IgM ratio” is the ratio of a serum sample’s IgM binding to non-phosphorylated tau peptide-coated wells divided by its IgM binding \( \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}\hbox{-} \mathrm{coated}\ \mathrm{wells}:\frac{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgM}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{non}\hbox{-} \mathrm{pTau}\ \mathrm{peptide}}{\mathrm{OD}\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{IgM}\ \mathrm{binding}\ \mathrm{to}\ \mathrm{BSA}} \) The between-group differences did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.26). (NCI = no cognitive impairment; MCI = mild cognitive impairment; AD = Alzheimer’s disease; non-pTau IgM = specific IgM binding to non-phosphorylated tau 196-207)

Correlations between tau antibody binding ratios, subject age, cognitive scores, and NFT counts

Correlations were examined, in pooled data from all subjects, between the four tau antibody ratios, and between each ratio and subject age, global cognitive scores, and NFT counts. Spearman’s rho values and their associated p-values are shown in Table 2. A negative correlation was found between the pTau and non-pTau IgM ratios (rho = −0.62; p = 0.0002). The associations between the other antibody ratios were weak (rho absolute values < 0.20). Age was positively associated with the non-pTau IgG ratio (rho = 0.55; p = 0.002). Global cognitive functioning scores and the non-pTau IgG ratio were negatively correlated (rho = −0.50; p = 0.005). Correlations between tau antibody ratios and NFT counts were weak (Spearman rho absolute values < 0.25).
Table 2

Correlations between tau antibody binding ratios, subject age, cognitive scores, and NFT counts using all study subjects

 

pTau IgG

non-pTau IgM

pTau IgM

Age

Global Cognition

NFT counts

Non-pTau IgG

−0.14

−0.01

0.12

0.55

−0.50

0.14

0.47

0.95

0.51

0.002

0.005

0.46

pTau IgG

 

−0.11

0.08

0.09

0.13

0.20

 

0.57

0.69

0.62

0.49

0.30

non-pTau IgM

  

−0.62

−0.08

0.05

0.24

  

0.0002

0.66

0.81

0.20

pTau IgM

   

0.23

−0.05

−0.13

   

0.22

0.78

0.50

Correlations in pooled data from all subjects are shown as Spearman’s rho values (top line) and their associated p-values (bottom line). The pTau IgM and non-pTau IgM ratios were negatively correlated, as were global cognitive functioning scores and the non-pTau IgG ratio. Subject age was positively associated with the non-pTau IgG ratio. (NFT = neurofibrillary tangles; pTau IgG = ratio of IgG binding to tau 196-207 phosphorylated at Serine-199 and Serine-202; non-pTau IgG = ratio of IgG binding to non-phosphorylated tau 196-207; pTau IgM = ratio of IgM binding to tau 196-207 phosphorylated at Serine-199 and Serine-202; non-pTau IgM = ratio of IgM binding to non-phosphorylated tau 196-207)

Discussion

This was an exploratory study to examine binding of serum IgG and IgM from NCI, MCI, and AD subjects to a phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau peptide. Antibody binding ratios > 1.0 were accepted as evidence for the presence of specific anti-tau antibodies. The main goal of the study was to determine the frequency of these antibodies in the subjects in each of the diagnostic groups. Specific serum antibodies to both phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau were detected in most subjects regardless of cognitive status. The secondary goal of the study was to compare specific anti-tau antibody levels between the three diagnostic groups. Increased specific IgG binding to the phosphorylated tau peptide (an increase in the pTau IgG ratio) was detected in MCI subjects compared to NCI and AD subjects. This finding was unexpected, and requires confirmation. Although NFT pathology can be present in individuals with MCI [4244], the mean NFT count in our MCI group was only slightly increased compared to that in our NCI group, and NFT counts in the brain regions represented by the mean NFT counts appeared similar between MCI and NCI subjects (data not shown). We did not find statistically significant differences between the three diagnostic groups for the other anti-tau antibody ratios, although we found a p-value of 0.052 for the overall differences between groups for the non-pTau IgG ratio. Given our relatively small group sizes, we cannot rule out the possibility of group differences for the non-pTau IgG, pTau IgM, and non-pTau IgM ratios.

Our correlational analyses produced some interesting findings. We found a negative correlation (rho = −0.62) between the pTau IgM and non-pTau IgM ratios. IgM is produced during the initial humoral (antibody) immune response to an antigen; this response peaks, then decreases more rapidly than the anamnestic response which occurs upon repeated exposure to an antigen [45]. Antibodies produced during the anamnestic response are mainly IgG, but some IgM is also produced [46]. Perhaps, as brain tau pathology increases (and tau that is increasingly phosphorylated leaks across the blood brain barrier [BBB]), the immune system may come into contact to a greater extent with phosphorylated rather than non-phosphorylated tau; this could result in increased production of anti-pTau antibodies as levels of antibodies to non-pTau decrease. However, this would not explain why a negative correlation was not also found between the pTau IgG and non-pTau IgG ratios.

We found a positive association between subject age and the non-pTau IgG ratio (rho = 0.55). This was unlikely to have contributed to the negative correlation between non-pTau IgG levels and global cognitive functioning (rho = −0.50) because age distribution was similar in our groups, while global cognition differed between groups. The negative correlation between non-pTau IgG and global cognitive functioning suggests that decreased cognition in some subjects may have been associated with an increase in their non-pTau IgG. However, the median non-pTau IgG ratio was only 16% higher for AD than for NCI subjects, and it was slightly lower for MCI than for NCI subjects (Fig. 3), so the relevance of this correlation is unclear.

The effects of serum anti-tau antibodies on the development and neuropathological progression of AD are unknown. Immunoglobulins are able to enter neurons [13, 47, 48], so if serum anti-tau antibodies gain limited access to the brain, they might reduce intraneuronal levels of aggregated and/or phosphorylated tau [4850]. Tau is also present extracellularly in “tombstone tangles” and during spreading of aggregated or misfolded tau between neurons [5153], so these antibodies might slow the spreading of tau pathology and/or promote microglial clearance of extracellular tau aggregates [25]. Although serum antibodies should not cross an intact BBB, an age-dependent progressive loss of BBB integrity in the hippocampus has been reported in NCI subjects [54], and BBB permeability increases in some MCI and AD subjects [5557]. Therefore serum anti-tau antibodies could reduce the neurotoxicity of pathological tau conformations in these individuals.

This study has some limitations. It was an exploratory study, because we did not know if specific anti-tau antibodies would be detectable in our subjects; we therefore limited our group sizes to 10 subjects each. The lack of statistical significance for the between-group differences for non-pTau IgG (p = 0.052), whose largest median value was in the AD group, could have been due to insufficient statistical power. We could not perform a post-hoc power analysis to estimate appropriate group sizes needed for reasonable statistical power for future comparisons of non-pTau IgG between NCI, MCI, and AD subjects, because the assumptions for ANOVA did not appear to be satisfied for our non-pTau IgG data. Finally, we do not know if results similar to those we found in this study would have been obtained with different non-phosphorylated or phosphorylated tau peptides.

Conclusions

Specific antibodies to phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau may be present in sera from older individuals regardless of their cognitive status. Specific serum IgG binding to phosphorylated tau may be increased, for unknown reasons, in individuals with MCI, but this finding requires confirmation. The approach used in this study to measure specific serum antibodies to phosphorylated tau should be of value for measuring antibodies to other neurodegeneration-related proteins that are post-translationally modified, such as α-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease [58] and huntingtin in Huntington’s disease [59].

Abbreviations

Aβ: 

Amyloid-β

AD: 

Alzheimer’s disease

ANOVA: 

Analysis of variance

BBB: 

Blood-brain barrier

BSA: 

Bovine serum albumin

ELISA: 

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

IVIG: 

Intravenous immunoglobulin

MCI: 

mild cognitive impairment

NCI: 

No cognitive impairment

NFTs: 

Neurofibrillary tangles

non-pTau: 

Non-phosphorylated tau

OD: 

Optical density

PBS: 

Phosphate-buffered saline

pTau: 

Phosphorylated tau

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Thanks are expressed to the subjects who participated in the Religious Orders Study and the Memory and Aging Project Study.

Funding

This study was supported by a donation from the Erb family to the Beaumont Foundation, and by NIH grants R01AG17917, P30AG10161, and R01AG15819 to Dr. Bennett. These funding bodies played no part in design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, or writing of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

ACK assisted with ELISA development, performed the ELISAs, collated the data, and assisted with manuscript preparation and revision. MPC performed statistical analyses and assisted with manuscript preparation and revision. DAB facilitated the transfer of serum samples from the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center to Beaumont Health’s Neurology Research Laboratory and assisted with manuscript preparation. DAL planned and directed the study, assisted with ELISA development, and wrote and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures involving study subjects were performed within the framework of the Religious Orders Study or the Rush Memory and Aging Project, and were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Rush University Medical Center (Chicago, IL, USA). All subjects who participated in the Religious Orders Study or the Rush Memory and Aging Project signed an informed consent and an Anatomical Gift Act for organ donation. No individuals with dementia were enrolled. All procedures relating to the subjects in these studies were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. The present study, which was restricted to measurement of anti-tau antibodies in de-identified serum samples (no patient-related procedures), was given exempt status by the Institutional Review Board of Beaumont Health (Royal Oak, MI, USA).

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests relating to this study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Neurology, Beaumont Research Institute, Beaumont Health
(2)
Department of Biostatistics, Beaumont Research Institute, Beaumont Health
(3)
Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center

References

  1. Avila J. Tau phosphorylation and aggregation in Alzheimer's disease pathology. FEBS Lett. 2006;580:2922–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gong CX, Liu F, Grundke-Iqbal I, Iqbal K. Post-translational modifications of tau protein in Alzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2005;112:813–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Lindwall G, Cole RD. Phosphorylation affects the ability of tau protein to promote microtubule assembly. J Biol Chem. 1984;259:5301–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Trinczek B, Ebneth A, Mandelkow EM, Mandelkow E. Tau regulates the attachment/detachment but not the speed of motors in microtubule-dependent transport of single vesicles and organelles. J Cell Sci. 1999;112:2355–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Alonso AC, Zaidi T, Grundke-Iqbal I, Iqbal K. Role of abnormally phosphorylated tau in the breakdown of microtubules in Alzheimer disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91:5562–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Gong CX, Iqbal K. Hyperphosphorylation of microtubule-associated protein tau: a promising therapeutic target for Alzheimer disease. Curr Med Chem. 2008;15:2321–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan CM, Mudher A. Are tau aggregates toxic or protective in tauopathies? Front Neurol. 2013;4:114.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger Z, Roder H, Hanna A, Carlson A, Rangachari V, Yue M, et al. Accumulation of pathological tau species and memory loss in a conditional model of tauopathy. J Neurosci. 2007;27:3650–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunden KR, Trojanowski JQ, Lee VM. Evidence that non-fibrillar tau causes pathology linked to neurodegeneration and behavioral impairments. J. Alzheimer Dis. 2008;14:393–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardy J, Allsop D. Amyloid deposition as the central event in the aetiology of Alzheimer's disease. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1991;12:383–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Honson NS, Kuret J. Tau aggregation and toxicity in tauopathic neurodegenerative diseases. J Alzheimers Dis. 2008;14:417–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Morsch R, Simon W, Coleman PD. Neurons may live for decades with neurofibrillary tangles. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1999;58:188–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Asuni AA, Boutajangout A, Quartermain D, Sigurdsson EM. Immunotherapy targeting pathological tau conformers in a tangle mouse model reduces brain pathology with associated functional improvements. J Neurosci. 2007;27:9115–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Boimel M, Grigoriadis N, Lourbopoulos A, Haber E, Abramsky O, Rosenmann H. Efficacy and safety of immunization with phosphorylated tau against neurofibrillary tangles in mice. Exp Neurol. 2010;224:472–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Theunis C, Crespo-Biel N, Gafner V, Pihlgren M, López-Deber MP, Reis P, et al. Efficacy and safety of a liposome-based vaccine against protein tau, assessed in tau.P301L mice that model tauopathy. PLoS One. 2013;8:e72301.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Ando K, Kabova A, Stygelbout V, Leroy K, Heraud C, Frédérick C, et al. Vaccination with Sarkosyl insoluble PHF-tau decrease neurofibrillary tangles formation in aged tau transgenic mouse model: a pilot study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;40:S135–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chai X, Wu S, Murray TK, Kinley R, Cella CV, Sims H, et al. Passive immunization with anti-tau antibodies in two transgenic models: reduction of tau pathology and delay of disease progression. J Biol Chem. 2011;286:34457–67.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Boutajangout A, Ingadottir J, Davies P, Sigurdsson EM. Passive immunization targeting pathological phospho-tau protein in a mouse model reduces functional decline and clears tau aggregates from the brain. J Neurochem. 2011;118:658–67.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Sankaranarayanan S, Barten DM, Vana L, Devidze N, Yang L, Cadelina G, et al. Passive immunization with phospho-tau antibodies reduces tau pathology and functional deficits in two distinct mouse tauopathy models. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0125614.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Yanamandra K, Jiang H, Mahan TE, Maloney SE, Wozniak DF, Diamond MI, et al. Anti-tau antibody reduces insoluble tau and decreases brain atrophy. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2015;2:278.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. d'Abramo C, Acker CM, Jimenez H, Davies P. Passive immunization in JNPL3 transgenic mice using an Array of Phospho-tau specific antibodies. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135774.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Novak P, Schmidt R, Kontsekova E, Zilka N, Kovacech B, Skrabana R, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the tau vaccine AADvac1 in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16:123–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Esteves-Villanueva JO, Trzeciakiewicz H, Loeffler DA, Martić S. Effects of tau domain-specific antibodies and intravenous immunoglobulin on tau aggregation and aggregate degradation. Biochemistry. 2015;54:293–302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Luo W, Liu W, Hu X, Hanna M, Caravaca A, Paul SM. Microglial internalization and degradation of pathological tau is enhanced by an anti-tau monoclonal antibody. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11161.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Yanamandra K, Kfoury N, Jiang H, Mahan TE, Ma S, Maloney SE, et al. Anti-tau antibodies that block tau aggregate seeding in vitro markedly decrease pathology and improve cognition in vivo. Neuron. 2013;80:402–14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Congdon EE, Lin Y, Rajamohamedsait HB, Shamir DB, Krishnaswamy S, Rajamohamedsait WJ, et al. Affinity of tau antibodies for solubilized pathological tau species but not their immunogen or insoluble tau aggregates predicts in vivo and ex vivo efficacy. Mol Neurodegener. 2016;11:62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Loeffler DA, Smith LM, Klaver AC, Martić S. Effects of antibodies to phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated tau on in vitro tau phosphorylation at Serine-199: preliminary report. Exp Gerontol. 2015;67:15–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Esteves-Villanueva JO, Martic-Milne S. Electrochemical detection of anti-tau antibodies binding to tau protein and inhibition of GSK-3β-catalyzed phosphorylation. Anal Biochem. 2016;496:55–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pascual G, Wadia JS, Zhu X, Keogh E, Kükrer B, van Ameijde J, et al. Immunological memory to hyperphosphorylated tau in asymptomatic individuals. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133:767–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosenmann H, Meiner Z, Geylis V, Abramsky O, Steinitz M. Detection of circulating antibodies against tau protein in its unphosphorylated and in its neurofibrillary tangles-related phosphorylated state in Alzheimer's disease and healthy subjects. Neurosci Lett. 2006;410:90–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bartos A, Fialová L, Svarcová J, Ripova D. Patients with Alzheimer disease have elevated intrathecal synthesis of antibodies against tau protein and heavy neurofilament. J Neuroimmunol. 2012;252:100–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fialová L, Bartos A, Svarcová J, Malbohan I. Increased intrathecal high-avidity anti-tau antibodies in patients with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27476.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Szabo P, Mujalli DM, Rotondi ML, Sharma R, Weber A, Schwarz HP, et al. Measurement of anti-beta amyloid antibodies in human blood. J Neuroimmunol. 2010;227:167–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Patrias LM, Klaver AC, Coffey MP, Loeffler DA. Specific antibodies to soluble alpha-synuclein conformations in intravenous immunoglobulin preparations. Clin Exp Immunol. 2010;161:527–35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith LM, Coffey MP, Klaver AC, Loeffler DA. Intravenous immunoglobulin products contain specific antibodies to recombinant human tau protein. Int Immunopharmacol. 2013;16:424–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Klaver AC, Coffey MP, Smith LM, Loeffler DA. Comparison of ELISA measurements of anti-Aβ concentrations and percentages of specific binding to Aβ between unfractionated intravenous immunoglobulin products and their purified anti-Aβ antibodies. Immunol Lett. 2013;154:7–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Loeffler DA, Klaver AC, Coffey MP. ELISA measurement of specific antibodies to phosphorylated tau in intravenous immunoglobulin products. Int Immunopharmacol. 2015;28:1108–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bennett DA, Schneider JA, Arvanitakis Z, Wilson RS. Overview and findings from the religious orders study. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2012;9:628–45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Bennett DA, Schneider JA, Buchman AS, Barnes LL, Boyle PA, Wilson RS. Overview and findings from the rush memory and aging project. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2012;9:646–63.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson RS, Boyle PA, Yu L, Barnes LL, Sytsma J, Buchman AS, et al. Temporal course and pathologic basis of unawareness of memory loss in dementia. Neurology. 2015;85:984–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Goedert M, Jakes R, Vanmechelen E. Monoclonal antibody AT8 recognises tau protein phosphorylated AT both serine 202 and threonine 205. Neurosci Lett. 1995;189:167–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Markesbery WR, Schmitt FA, Kryscio RJ, Davis DG, Smith CD, Wekstein DR. Neuropathologic substrate of mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2006;63:38–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson KA, Schultz A, Betensky RA, Becker JA, Sepulcre J, Rentz D, et al. Tau positron emission tomographic imaging in aging and early Alzheimer disease. Ann Neurol. 2016;79:110–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Cho H, Choi JY, Hwang MS, Lee JH, Kim YJ, Lee HM, et al. Tau PET in Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2016;87:375–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Roitt IM. Essential Immunology. 7th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1991. p. 130–3.Google Scholar
  46. Godfrey HP, Yashphe DJ, Coons AH. Characterization of IgM and IgG antibodies produced during the anamnestic response initiated in vitro. J Immunol. 1969;102:317–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Tampellini D, Magrane J, Takahashi RH, Li F, Lin MT, Almeida CG, et al. Internalized antibodies to the Abeta domain of APP reduce neuronal Abeta and protect against synaptic alterations. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:18895–906.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Gu J, Congdon EE, Sigurdsson EM. Two novel tau antibodies targeting the 396/404 region are primarily taken up by neurons and reduce tau protein pathology. J Biol Chem. 2013;288:33081–95.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Krishnamurthy PK, Deng Y, Sigurdsson EM. Mechanistic studies of antibody-mediated clearance of tau aggregates using an ex vivo brain slice model. Front Psychiatry. 2011;2:59.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Congdon EE, Gu J, Sait HB, Sigurdsson EM. Antibody uptake into neurons occurs primarily via clathrin-dependent Fcγ receptor endocytosis and is a prerequisite for acute tau protein clearance. J Biol Chem. 2013;288:35452–65.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Clavaguera F, Bolmont T, Crowther RA, Abramowski D, Frank S, Probst A, et al. Transmission and spreading of tauopathy in transgenic mouse brain. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11:909–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Frost B, Jacks RL, Diamond MI. Propagation of tau misfolding from the outside to the inside of a cell. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:12845–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Kfoury N, Holmes BB, Jiang H, Holtzman DM, Diamond MI. Trans-cellular propagation of tau aggregation by fibrillar species. J Biol Chem. 2012;287:19440–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Montagne A, Barnes SR, Sweeney MD, Halliday MR, Sagare AP, Zhao Z, et al. Blood-brain barrier breakdown in the aging human hippocampus. Neuron. 2015;85:296–302.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang H, Golob EJ, Su MY. Vascular volume and blood-brain barrier permeability measured by dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in hippocampus and cerebellum of patients with MCI and normal controls. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:695–700.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Bowman GL, Kaye JA, Moore M, Waichunas D, Carlson NE, Quinn JF. Blood-brain barrier impairment in Alzheimer disease: stability and functional significance. Neurology. 2007;68:1809–14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Algotsson A, Winblad B. The integrity of the blood-brain barrier in Alzheimer's disease. Acta Neurol Scand. 2007;115:403–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang Y, Shi M, Chung KA, Zabetian CP, Leverenz JB, Berg D, et al. Phosphorylated α-synuclein in Parkinson's disease. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:121ra20.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Colin E, Zala D, Liot G, Rangone H, Borrell-Pagès M, Li XJ, Saudou F, et al. Huntingtin phosphorylation acts as a molecular switch for anterograde/retrograde transport in neurons. EMBO J. 2008;27:2124–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement