Cargando…

Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative

BACKGROUND: The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ehrenberg, Alexander J., Khatun, Ayesha, Coomans, Emma, Betts, Matthew J., Capraro, Federica, Thijssen, Elisabeth H., Senkevich, Konstantin, Bharucha, Tehmina, Jafarpour, Mehrsa, Young, Peter N. E., Jagust, William, Carter, Stephen F., Lashley, Tammaryn, Grinberg, Lea T., Pereira, Joana B., Mattsson-Carlgren, Niklas, Ashton, Nicholas J., Hanrieder, Jörg, Zetterberg, Henrik, Schöll, Michael, Paterson, Ross W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7222479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32404143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00601-w
_version_ 1783533584019095552
author Ehrenberg, Alexander J.
Khatun, Ayesha
Coomans, Emma
Betts, Matthew J.
Capraro, Federica
Thijssen, Elisabeth H.
Senkevich, Konstantin
Bharucha, Tehmina
Jafarpour, Mehrsa
Young, Peter N. E.
Jagust, William
Carter, Stephen F.
Lashley, Tammaryn
Grinberg, Lea T.
Pereira, Joana B.
Mattsson-Carlgren, Niklas
Ashton, Nicholas J.
Hanrieder, Jörg
Zetterberg, Henrik
Schöll, Michael
Paterson, Ross W.
author_facet Ehrenberg, Alexander J.
Khatun, Ayesha
Coomans, Emma
Betts, Matthew J.
Capraro, Federica
Thijssen, Elisabeth H.
Senkevich, Konstantin
Bharucha, Tehmina
Jafarpour, Mehrsa
Young, Peter N. E.
Jagust, William
Carter, Stephen F.
Lashley, Tammaryn
Grinberg, Lea T.
Pereira, Joana B.
Mattsson-Carlgren, Niklas
Ashton, Nicholas J.
Hanrieder, Jörg
Zetterberg, Henrik
Schöll, Michael
Paterson, Ross W.
author_sort Ehrenberg, Alexander J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7222479
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72224792020-05-20 Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative Ehrenberg, Alexander J. Khatun, Ayesha Coomans, Emma Betts, Matthew J. Capraro, Federica Thijssen, Elisabeth H. Senkevich, Konstantin Bharucha, Tehmina Jafarpour, Mehrsa Young, Peter N. E. Jagust, William Carter, Stephen F. Lashley, Tammaryn Grinberg, Lea T. Pereira, Joana B. Mattsson-Carlgren, Niklas Ashton, Nicholas J. Hanrieder, Jörg Zetterberg, Henrik Schöll, Michael Paterson, Ross W. Alzheimers Res Ther Review BACKGROUND: The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care. BioMed Central 2020-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7222479/ /pubmed/32404143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00601-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Ehrenberg, Alexander J.
Khatun, Ayesha
Coomans, Emma
Betts, Matthew J.
Capraro, Federica
Thijssen, Elisabeth H.
Senkevich, Konstantin
Bharucha, Tehmina
Jafarpour, Mehrsa
Young, Peter N. E.
Jagust, William
Carter, Stephen F.
Lashley, Tammaryn
Grinberg, Lea T.
Pereira, Joana B.
Mattsson-Carlgren, Niklas
Ashton, Nicholas J.
Hanrieder, Jörg
Zetterberg, Henrik
Schöll, Michael
Paterson, Ross W.
Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative
title Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative
title_full Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative
title_fullStr Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative
title_full_unstemmed Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative
title_short Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative
title_sort relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7222479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32404143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00601-w
work_keys_str_mv AT ehrenbergalexanderj relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT khatunayesha relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT coomansemma relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT bettsmatthewj relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT caprarofederica relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT thijssenelisabethh relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT senkevichkonstantin relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT bharuchatehmina relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT jafarpourmehrsa relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT youngpeterne relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT jagustwilliam relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT carterstephenf relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT lashleytammaryn relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT grinbergleat relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT pereirajoanab relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT mattssoncarlgrenniklas relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT ashtonnicholasj relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT hanriederjorg relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT zetterberghenrik relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT schollmichael relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative
AT patersonrossw relevanceofbiomarkersacrossdifferentneurodegenerative