| 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. |
- Pikkarainen, Maria, et al.
(författare)
-
Neuropathologic features of frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions visualized with ubiquitin-binding protein p62 immunohistochemistry.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. - 0022-3069 .- 1554-6578. ; 67:4, s. 280-98
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Genetic, clinical, and neuropathologic heterogeneity have been observed in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin (Ubq)-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and FTLD-U with motor neuron disease. Here, the distribution and morphologic features of neuronal and glial inclusions in the brains of 20 FTLD-U and 2 FTLD-U/motor neuron disease cases were assessed using immunohistochemistry for Ubq-binding protein p62. Eighteen cases displayed TAR DNA-binding protein 43-immunoreactive lesions and were classified as Types 3 (neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions and neurites; 72%), 2 (primarily neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions; 17%), or 1 (primarily neurites; 11%) FTLD-U. The distribution of p62-immunoreactivity varied considerably in each type. Of 4 unclassifiable cases, 2 displayed p62-immunoreactive lesions suggestive of FTLD-U with a mutation in the charged multivesicular body protein 2B gene; 1 suggested basophilic inclusion body disease, and 1 was of a type not previously described. By immunohistochemistry for Ubq-binding protein p62, the distribution of abnormalities was wider than expected; in approximately half of the cases, there were p62-positive but TAR DNA-binding protein 43-negative inclusions in the cerebellum, a region not previously considered to be affected. In other regions, TAR DNA-binding protein 43-, Ubq-, and Ubq-binding protein p62 labeling of inclusions was variable. Whether variations in inclusion morphologies, immunoreactivity, and topographic distribution are due to methodologic factors, different stages of inclusion and disease evolution, different disease entities or biologic modifications of the same disease are presently unclear.
|
|
