Commentary on “Diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: Two decades of progress”

c c o p A f In “Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: Two Decades of rogress” [1], Dr. Khachaturian has done a superb job describng the role of the National Institute on Aging (NIA) in adancing our ability to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and ther degenerative dementia and identifying those with minial cognitive impairment (MCI) who are at risk for AD. As oted by Dr. Khachaturian, clinical–neuropathologic correlaions have been of particular importance in developing diagostic tools for AD and for defining the non-AD dementing llnesses. NIA support of Alzheimer Disease Research Centers nd Alzheimer Disease Centers has greatly augmented the umber of well-studied autopsied cases and accelerated the ace of research. I would like to add 3 pre-1985 historical acets. First, in 1977, the newly formed National Institute on ging joined with the National Institute of Neurological and ommunicative Disorders and Stroke (NINCDS) and National nstitute of Mental Health (NIMH) in sponsoring a workshop– onference on “Alzheimer’s Disease: Senile Dementia and elated Disorders” [2], which was held on the National Instiutes of Health (NIH) Bethesda campus. This conference was rganized Dr. Robert Terry, and Dr. Katherine Bick, and myelf. There were 84 participants. These included established uthorities on AD such as Robert Terry and Martin Roth, nvestigators from 2 of the 3 groups who had independently iscovered the major loss of choline acetyl transferase in the D brain—Alan Davison and Peter Davies, clinicians such as artin Albert and Robert Cohn, and important scientists hose skill had not yet been applied to dementing illesses—such as Edith McGeer and George Glenner. Glenner, pathologist and molecular chemist and an authority on sysemic amyloidoses, then began working on AD. By 1984, lenner had successfully isolated and characterized the amyoid in the AD brain opening up a major area of investigation n the pathogenesis of AD [3].