| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Jonaitis, E. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Crosswalk study on blood collection-tube types for Alzheimer's disease biomarkers
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's & Dementia. - : Wiley. - 1552-5260 .- 1552-5279. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Blood-based Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers show promise, but pre-analytical protocol differences may pose problems. We examined seven AD blood biomarkers (amyloid beta [A beta]42${\rm{A\beta }}]{_{42}}$, A beta 40${\rm{A}}{{{\beta}}_{40}}$, phosphorylatedtau[p-tau181${\rm{phosphorylated\;tau\;[p - ta}}{{\rm{u}}_{181}}$, total tau [t-tau], neurofilament light chain [NfL], A beta 4240,${\rm{A}}{{{\beta}}_{\frac{{42}}{{40}}}},$ and p-tau181A beta 42$\frac{{{\rm{p - ta}}{{\rm{u}}_{181}}}}{{{\rm{A}}{{{\beta}}_{42}}}}$) in three collection tube types (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid [EDTA] plasma, heparin plasma, serum). Methods Plasma and serum were obtained from cerebrospinal fluid or amyloid positron emission tomography-positive and -negative participants (N = 38) in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention. We modeled AD biomarker values observed in EDTA plasma versus heparin plasma and serum, and assessed correspondence with brain amyloidosis. Results Results suggested bias due to tube type, but crosswalks are possible for some analytes, with excellent model fit for NfL (R2${{\rm{R}}<^>2}\;$= 0.94), adequate for amyloid (R2${{\rm{R}}<^>2}\;$= 0.40-0.69), and weaker for t-tau (R2${{\rm{R}}<^>2}\;$= 0.04-0.42) and p-tau181${\rm{p - ta}}{{\rm{u}}_{181}}$ ( R2${{\rm{R}}<^>2}\;$= 0.22-0.29). Brain amyloidosis differentiated several measures, especially EDTA plasma pTau181A beta 42$\frac{{{\rm{pTa}}{{\rm{u}}_{181}}}}{{{\rm{A}}{\beta _{42}}}}$ (d$d\;$= 1.29). Discussion AD biomarker concentrations vary by tube type. However, correlations for some biomarkers support harmonization across types, suggesting cautious optimism for use in banked blood.
|
|
| 3. |
- Casen, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Deviations in human gut microbiota: a novel diagnostic test for determining dysbiosis in patients with IBS or IBD
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. - : Wiley. - 0269-2813 .- 1365-2036. ; 42:1, s. 71-83
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundDysbiosis is associated with many diseases, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), obesity and diabetes. Potential clinical impact of imbalance in the intestinal microbiota suggests need for new standardised diagnostic methods to facilitate microbiome profiling. AimTo develop and validate a novel diagnostic test using faecal samples to profile the intestinal microbiota and identify and characterise dysbiosis. MethodsFifty-four DNA probes targeting 300 bacteria on different taxonomic levels were selected based on ability to distinguish between healthy controls and IBS patients in faecal samples. Overall, 165 healthy controls (normobiotic reference collection) were used to develop a dysbiosis model with a bacterial profile and Dysbiosis Index score output. The model algorithmically assesses faecal bacterial abundance and profile, and potential clinically relevant deviation in the microbiome from normobiosis. This model was tested in different samples from healthy volunteers and IBS and IBD patients (n=330) to determine the ability to detect dysbiosis. ResultsValidation confirms dysbiosis was detected in 73% of IBS patients, 70% of treatment-naive IBD patients and 80% of IBD patients in remission, vs. 16% of healthy individuals. Comparison of deep sequencing and the GA-map Dysbiosis Test, (Genetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway) illustrated good agreement in bacterial capture; the latter showing higher resolution by targeting pre-determined highly relevant bacteria. ConclusionsThe GA-map Dysbiosis Test identifies and characterises dysbiosis in IBS and IBD patients, and provides insight into a patient's intestinal microbiota. Evaluating microbiota as a diagnostic strategy may allow monitoring of prescribed treatment regimens and improvement in new therapeutic approaches.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
