Skip to main content

Table 2 Differences between p-tau subgroups in demographic variables and protein levels in CSF. Raw levels of proteins were compared between p-tau subgroups

From: P-tau subgroups in AD relate to distinct amyloid production and synaptic integrity profiles

 

Characteristics per p-tau subgroup

p-values of p-tau subgroup comparisons

Controls (n = 98)

Subgroup 1: p-tau ≤ 56 pg/ml (n = 94)

Subgroup 2: p-tau 57–96 pg/ml (n = 147)

Subgroup 3: p-tau 97–159 pg/ml (n = 89)

Subgroup 4: p-tau > 159 pg/ml (n = 11)

p-value of group difference

Control-subgroup 1

Control-subgroup 2

Control-subgroup 3

Control-subgroup 4

Subgroup 1–2

Subgroup 1–3

Subgroup 1–4

Subgroup 2–3

Subgroup 2–4

Subgroup 3–4

Preclinical AD, n (percentagea)

0 (0%)

21 (22%)

20 (14%)

9 (10%)

1 (9.1%)

7.2E−05

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Prodromal AD, n (percentagea)

0 (0%)

32 (34%)

46 (31%)

21 (24%)

3 (27%)

2.4E−08

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

1.4E−02

0.524

0.931

0.524

1.000

1.000

AD dementia, n (percentagea)

0 (0%)

41 (44%)

81 (55%)

59 (66%)

7 (64%)

1.1E−21

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

0.0E+00

0.0E+00

8.9E−03

0.178

0.977

1.000

Age in years, mean ± sd

58.2 ± 7.9

63.6 ± 7.8

65.5 ± 6.9

66.6 ± 7.8

68.5 ± 8.6

6.0E−13

1.3E−05

2.0E−10

3.4E−10

7.4E−04

0.119

1.5E−02

0.080

0.179

0.208

0.581

Sex, female (%)

32 (33%)

33 (35%)

56 (38%)

52 (58%)

8 (73%)

4.2E−04

0.836

0.661

6.9E−03

0.056

0.822

1.2E−02

0.073

1.2E−02

0.088

0.696

APOE ε4 carriership (%)

28 (29%)

62 (66%)

93 (63%)

54 (61%)

7 (64%)

1.2E−07

0.0E+00

0.0E+00

1.0E−04

0.108

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

MMSE score, mean ± sd

28.5 ± 1.4

24.6 ± 4.7

23.9 ± 4.2

22.4 ± 4.8

22.5 ± 4.3

1.3E−28

1.8E−12

2.1E−22

3.7E−22

3.5E−06

0.072

6.1E−04

0.086

2.5E−02

0.282

0.987

Amyloid in pg/ml, mean ± sd

1139 ± 161

616 ± 119

607 ± 99

615 ± 95

596 ± 95

3.3E−48

2.7E−32

4.3E−39

1.4E−31

1.5E−07

0.846

0.953

0.846

0.846

0.846

0.846

t-tau in pg/ml, mean ± sd

207 ± 59

286 ± 106

568 ± 154

982 ± 252

1732 ± 359

2.4E−77

6.3E−10

1.4E−38

1.7E−31

7.2E−08

1.7E−31

5.7E−31

7.2E−08

6.0E−29

4.8E−08

7.6E−07

p-tau in pg/ml, mean ± sd

36.7 ± 9.3

42.9 ± 11

75.4 ± 11

116 ± 16

195 ± 23

4.0E−82

4.4E−06

4.2E−39

9.9E−32

7.8E−08

1.9E−38

3.2E−31

7.8E−08

2.2E−37

5.6E−08

7.8E−08

Abnormal t-tau status, n (%)

0 (0%)

15 (16%)

141 (96%)

89 (100%)

11 (100%)

2.2E−77

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

0.0E+00

0.0E+00

0.0E+00

0.17

1

n.t.

Abnormal p-tau status, n (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

147 (100%)

89 (100%)

11 (100%)

1.0E−93

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

n.t.

BACE1 in ng/ml, median (range)

1.68 (.77–3.37)

1.51 (.63–2.47)

1.93 (1.04–3.48)

2.51 (1.54–3.93)

3.60 (2.61–4.34)

2.1E−37

5.0E−03

2.0E−06

2.2E−18

1.3E−07

1.1E−13

2.2E−23

1.3E−07

7.0E−13

1.5E−07

7.4E−05

Aβ40 in ng/ml, median (range)

6.09 (3.44–10.68)

5.02 (2.0–8.92)

6.71 (3.32–12.20)

8.69 (3.59–13.95)

9.40 (7.81–15.79)

9.8E−34

2.8E−06

1.5E−02

8.4E−15

4.2E−06

3.3E−13

1.5E−23

2.2E−07

9.8E−13

1.1E−05

0.069

NfL in pg/ml, median (range)

245 (113–1594)

389 (147–1770)

467 (169–2322)

630 (304–1441)

809 (413–1743)

5.9E−37

5.5E−08

1.1E−20

3.4E−24

7.0E−07

4.5E−05

2.1E−14

3.1E−05

9.0E−09

4.1E−04

0.107

VAMP2 in pg/ml, median (range)

131 (40–275)

106 (28–229)

163 (82–288)

237 (84–398)

382 (269–522)

3.8E−41

2.9E−04

3.4E−07

6.9E−21

3.4E−07

8.3E−16

4.5E−24

3.4E−07

3.8E−15

3.2E−07

1.6E−05

NRGN in pg/ml, median (range)

262 (73–498)

250 (56–501)

431 (188–752)

657 (353–1268)

1060 (754–1915)

3.4E−63

0.735

9.3E−25

3.9E−30

8.1E−08

4.4E−25

9.2E−30

8.1E−08

4.3E−23

5.6E−08

1.2E−06

  1. Controls were cognitively normal and had normal CSF amyloid, t-tau, and p-tau. Abnormal t-tau and p-tau status were based on previously derived cutoffs of 349 and 56 pg/ml (further details are in the “Methods” section). Differences between p-tau subgroups in demographic variables were tested with ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis rank sum, or chi-square tests as appropriate, followed by pairwise t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, or post hoc chi-square tests for subgroup comparisons as appropriate. Differences between p-tau subgroups in protein levels were all tested with the Kruskal Wallis rank sum test, followed by Wilcoxon rank sum tests. p-values were FDR-corrected for multiple tests between p-tau subgroups
  2. BACE1, beta-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1; Aβ40, amyloid-beta 1–40; NfL, neurofilament light; NRGN, neurogranin; VAMP2, vesicle-associated membrane protein 2; n.t., not tested
  3. aRelative percentage in subgroup
Back to article page

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1758-9193