SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

In vivo visualization of age-related differences in the locus coeruleus.

Neurobiol Aging · 2018-10-20

DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.10.014PMID: 30447418

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The locus coeruleus (LC), the major origin of noradrenergic modulation of the central nervous system, may play an important role in neuropsychiatric disorders including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. The pattern of age-related change of the LC across the life span is unclear. We obtained normalized, mean LC signal intensity values, that is, contrast ratios (CRs), from magnetization transfer-weighted images to investigate the relationship between LC CR and age in cognitively normal healthy adults (N = 605, age range 18-88 years). Study participants were part of the Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience-an open-access, population-based data set. We found a quadratic relationship between LC CR and age, the peak occurring around 60 years, with no differences between males and females. Subregional analyses revealed that age-related decline in LC CR was confined to the rostral portion of the LC. Older adults showed greater variance in overall LC CR than younger adults, and the functional and clinical implications of these observed age-related differences require further investigation. Visualization of the LC in this study may inform how future scanning parameters can be optimized, and provides insight into how LC integrity changes across the life span.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.