Network segregation is associated with processing speed in the cognitively healthy oldest-ol

Abstract

The brain is organized into systems and networks of interacting components. The functional connections among these components give insight into the brain's organization and may underlie some cognitive effects of aging. Examining the relationship between individual differences in brain organization and cognitive function in older adults who have reached oldest old ages with healthy cognition can help us understand how these networks support healthy cognitive aging. We investigated functional network segregation in 146 cognitively healthy participants aged 85+ in the McKnight Brain Aging Registry. We found that the segregation of the association system and the individual networks within the association system [the fronto-parietal network (FPN), cingulo-opercular network (CON) and default mode network (DMN)], has strong associations with overall cognition and processing speed. We also provide a healthy oldest-old (85+) cortical parcellation that can be used in future work in this age group. This study shows that network segregation of the oldest-old brain is closely linked to cognitive performance. This work adds to the growing body of knowledge about differentiation in the aged brain by demonstrating that cognitive ability is associated with differentiated functional networks in very old individuals representing successful cognitive aging.

Data availability

Code is available for node creation at https://github.com/Visscher-Lab/MBAR_oldestold_nodes and code and post processed data for statistical analyses and figures is available at https://github.com/Visscher-Lab/MBAR_segregation_paperBecause these data come from a select group of people who have lived to oldest-old ages, making them potentially identifiable, raw data is not available. More detailed data than the post processed data available online can be requested by submitting a request with explanation of intended use of the data to kmv@uab.edu. Requests are reviewed by a committee of principal investigators of the McKnight brain aging registry.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sara A Nolin

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    nolin@musc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Mary E Faulkner

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Paul Stewart

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Leland L Fleming

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4047-9031
  5. Stacy Merritt

    Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Roxanne F Rezaei

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Prad K Bharadwaj

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mary Kate Franchetti

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. David A Raichlen

    University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Courtney J Jessup

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Lloyd Edwards

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. G Alex Hishaw

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Emily J Van Etten

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Theodore P Trouard

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. David Geldmacher

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Virginia G Wadley

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Noam Alperin

    Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Eric S Porges

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Adam J Woods

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Ron A Cohen

    Evelyn F and William L McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Bonnie E Levin

    School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Tatjana Rundek

    School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Gene E Alexander

    Evelyn F McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Kristina Visscher

    School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    kmv@uab.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0737-4024

Funding

Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Research Foundation

  • Ron A Cohen
  • Bonnie E Levin
  • Tatjana Rundek
  • Gene E Alexander
  • Kristina Visscher

National Institute of Health/National institute of Neurological Disorder and Stroke (T32NS061788-12 07/2008)

  • Sara A Nolin

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Informed consent was obtained from all participants and approval for the study was received from the Institutional Review Boards at each of the data collection sites including University of Alabama at Birmingham (IRB protocol X160113004), University of Florida (IRB protocol 201300162), University of Miami (IRB protocol 20151783), and University of Arizona (IRB protocol 1601318818).

Copyright

© 2025, Nolin et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 108
    views
  • 30
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Sara A Nolin
  2. Mary E Faulkner
  3. Paul Stewart
  4. Leland L Fleming
  5. Stacy Merritt
  6. Roxanne F Rezaei
  7. Prad K Bharadwaj
  8. Mary Kate Franchetti
  9. David A Raichlen
  10. Courtney J Jessup
  11. Lloyd Edwards
  12. G Alex Hishaw
  13. Emily J Van Etten
  14. Theodore P Trouard
  15. David Geldmacher
  16. Virginia G Wadley
  17. Noam Alperin
  18. Eric S Porges
  19. Adam J Woods
  20. Ron A Cohen
  21. Bonnie E Levin
  22. Tatjana Rundek
  23. Gene E Alexander
  24. Kristina Visscher
(2025)
Network segregation is associated with processing speed in the cognitively healthy oldest-ol
eLife 14:e78076.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78076

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78076

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Aida Bareghamyan, Changfeng Deng ... Don B Arnold
    Tools and Resources

    Recombinant optogenetic and chemogenetic proteins are potent tools for manipulating neuronal activity and controlling neural circuit function. However, there are few analogous tools for manipulating the structure of neural circuits. Here, we introduce three rationally designed genetically encoded tools that use E3 ligase-dependent mechanisms to trigger the degradation of synaptic scaffolding proteins, leading to functional ablation of synapses. First, we developed a constitutive excitatory synapse ablator, PFE3, analogous to the inhibitory synapse ablator GFE3. PFE3 targets the RING domain of the E3 ligase Mdm2 and the proteasome-interacting region of Protocadherin 10 to the scaffolding protein PSD-95, leading to efficient ablation of excitatory synapses. In addition, we developed a light-inducible version of GFE3, paGFE3, using a novel photoactivatable complex based on the photocleavable protein PhoCl2c. paGFE3 degrades Gephyrin and ablates inhibitory synapses in response to 400 nm light. Finally, we developed a chemically inducible version of GFE3, chGFE3, which degrades inhibitory synapses when combined with the bio-orthogonal dimerizer HaloTag ligand-trimethoprim. Each tool is specific, reversible, and capable of breaking neural circuits at precise locations.

    1. Neuroscience
    Patricia E Phelps, Sung Min Ha ... Xia Yang
    Research Article

    Olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs) are unique glial cells found in both central and peripheral nervous systems where they support continuous axonal outgrowth of olfactory sensory neurons to their targets. Previously, we reported that following severe spinal cord injury, OECs transplanted near the injury site modify the inhibitory glial scar and facilitate axon regeneration past the scar border and into the lesion. To better understand the mechanisms underlying the reparative properties of OECs, we used single-cell RNA-sequencing of OECs from adult rats to study their gene expression programs. Our analyses revealed five diverse OEC subtypes, each expressing novel marker genes and pathways indicative of progenitor, axonal regeneration, secreted molecules, or microglia-like functions. We found substantial overlap of OEC genes with those of Schwann cells, but also with microglia, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes. We confirmed established markers on cultured OECs, and localized select top genes of OEC subtypes in olfactory bulb tissue. We also show that OECs secrete Reelin and Connective tissue growth factor, extracellular matrix molecules which are important for neural repair and axonal outgrowth. Our results support that OECs are a unique hybrid glia, some with progenitor characteristics, and that their gene expression patterns indicate functions related to wound healing, injury repair, and axonal regeneration.