| 1. |
- Andreasson, Ulf, 1968, et al.
(författare)
-
Update on ultrasensitive technologies to facilitate research on blood biomarkers for central nervous system disorders.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). - : Wiley. - 2352-8729. ; 3, s. 98-102
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Most research on fluid biomarkers for central nervous system (CNS) disorders has so far been performed using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) as the biomarker source. CSF has the advantage of being closer to the brain than serum or plasma with a relative enrichment of CNS-specific proteins that are present at very low concentrations in the blood and thus difficult to reliably quantify using standard immunochemical technologies. Recent technical breakthroughs in the field of ultrasensitive assays have started to change this. Here, we review the most established ultrasensitive quantitative technologies that are currently available to general biomarker laboratories and discuss their use in research on biomarkers for CNS disorders.
|
|
| 2. |
- Insel, Philip S., et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing risk for preclinical β-amyloid pathology with APOE, cognitive, and demographic information
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's and Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment and Disease Monitoring. - : Wiley. - 2352-8729. ; 4, s. 76-84
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease are aimed at early stages of disease, including preclinical Alzheimer's disease. The high cost and time required to screen large numbers of participants for Aβ pathology impede the development of novel drugs. This study's objective was to evaluate the extent to which inexpensive and easily obtainable information can reduce the number of screen failures by increasing the proportion of Aβ+ participants identified for screening. Methods We used random forest models to evaluate the positive predictive value of demographics, APOE, and longitudinal cognitive rates in the prediction of amyloid pathology, measured by florbetapir PET or cerebrospinal fluid. Results Predicting Aβ positivity with demographic, APOE, and cognitive information yielded a positive predictive value estimate of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.50–0.96), nearly a 60% increase over the reference Aβ+ prevalence in the cohort of 0.41. Conclusions By incorporating this procedure, clinical trial screening costs of 7500 USD per participant may be reduced by nearly 7 million USD total.
|
|
| 3. |
- O'Bryant, S. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing biological markers of Alzheimer's disease across blood fraction and platforms: Comparing apples to oranges
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's & Dementia. - : Wiley. - 1552-5260 .- 1552-5279. ; 3, s. 27-34
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: This study investigated the comparability of potential Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers across blood fractions and assay platforms. Methods: Nonfasting serum and plasma samples from 300 participants (150 AD patients and 150 controls) were analyzed. Proteomic markers were obtained via electrochemiluminescence or Luminex technology. Comparisons were conducted via Pearson correlations. The relative importance of proteins within an AD diagnostic profile was examined using random forest importance plots. Results: On the Meso Scale Discovery multiplex platform, 10 of the 21 markers shared >50% of the variance across blood fractions (serum amyloid A R2 = 0.99, interleukin (IL)10 R2 = 0.95, fatty acid-binding protein (FABP) R2 = 0.94, I309 R2 = 0.94, IL-5 R2 = 0.94, IL-6 R2 = 0.94, eotaxin3 R2 = 0.91, IL-18 R2 = 0.87, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 R2 = 0.85, and pancreatic polypeptide R2 = 0.81). When examining protein concentrations across platforms, only five markers shared >50% of the variance (beta 2 microglobulin R2 = 0.92, IL-18 R2 = 0.80, factor VII R2 = 0.78, CRP R2 = 0.74, and FABP R2 = 0.70). Discussion: The current findings highlight the importance of considering blood fractions and assay platforms when searching for AD relevant biomarkers. © 2016 The Authors.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
