| 1. |
- Alafuzoff, Irina, et al.
(författare)
-
Inter-laboratory comparison of neuropathological assessments of beta-amyloid protein : a study of the BrainNet Europe consortium.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Acta Neuropathologica. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0001-6322 .- 1432-0533. ; 115:5, s. 533-46
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Amyloid-beta-protein (Abeta) is generally assessed by neuropathologists in diagnostics. This BrainNet Europe ( http://www.brainnet-europe.org/ ) (15 centres and 26 participants) study was carried out to investigate the reliability of such an assessment. In the first part of this trial, tissue microarray sections were stained with the antibody of each centre's choice. Reflecting the reality, seven antibodies and a plethora of pretreatment strategies were used. Ninety-two percent of the stainings were of good/acceptable quality and the estimation of presence of Abeta aggregates yielded good results. However, a poor agreement was reached particularly regarding quantitative (density) and qualitative (diffuse/cored plaques) results. During a joint meeting, the clone 4G8 was determined to label best the fleecy/diffuse plaques, and thus, this clone and the formic acid pretreatment technique were selected for the second part of this study. Subsequently, all stained sections were of good/acceptable quality and again a high level of concordance of the dichotomized (presence/absence) assessment of plaques and CAA was achieved. However, even when only one antibody was used, the type of Abeta-aggregates (diffuse/cored), type of vessel and Vonsattel grade, were not reliably assigned. Furthermore, the quantification of lesions was far from reliable. In line with the first trial, the agreement while assessing density (some, moderate and many) was unimpressive. In conclusion, we can confirm the utility of immunohistochemical detection of Abeta-protein in diagnostics and research. It is noteworthy that to reach reproducible results a dichotomized assessment of Abeta-immunoreactivity rather than quantification and assignment of various types of lesions should be applied, particularly when comparing results obtained by different neuropathologists.
|
|
| 2. |
- Alafuzoff, Irina, et al.
(författare)
-
Neuropathological assessments of the pathology in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP43-positive inclusions : an inter-laboratory study by the BrainNet Europe consortium
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of neural transmission. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0300-9564 .- 1435-1463. ; 122:7, s. 957-972
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The BrainNet Europe consortium assessed the reproducibility in the assignment of the type of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP) 43 following current recommendations. The agreement rates were influenced by the immunohistochemical (IHC) method and by the classification strategy followed. p62-IHC staining yielded good uniform quality of stains, but the most reliable results were obtained implementing specific Abs directed against the hallmark protein TDP43. Both assessment of the type and the extent of lesions were influenced by the Abs and by the quality of stain. Assessment of the extent of the lesions yielded poor results repeatedly; thus, the extent of pathology should not be used in diagnostic consensus criteria. Whilst 31 neuropathologists typed 30 FTLD-TDP cases, inter-rater agreement ranged from 19 to 100 per cent, being highest when applying phosphorylated TDP43/IHC. The agreement was highest when designating Type C or Type A/B. In contrast, there was a poor agreement when attempting to separate Type A or Type B FTLD-TDP. In conclusion, we can expect that neuropathologist, independent of his/her familiarity with FTLD-TDP pathology, can identify a TDP43-positive FTLD case. The goal should be to state a Type (A, B, C, D) or a mixture of Types (A/B, A/C or B/C). Neuropathologists, other clinicians and researchers should be aware of the pitfalls whilst doing so. Agreement can be reached in an inter-laboratory setting regarding Type C cases with thick and long neurites, whereas the differentiation between Types A and B may be more troublesome.
|
|
