Cargando…
Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40?
BACKGROUND: A reduced amyloid-β (Aβ)42/40 peptide ratio in blood plasma represents a peripheral biomarker of the cerebral amyloid pathology observed in Alzheimer’s disease brains. The magnitude of the measurable effect in plasma is smaller than in cerebrospinal fluid, presumably due to dilution by A...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36461122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12987-022-00390-4 |
_version_ | 1784843254565437440 |
---|---|
author | Klafki, Hans-Wolfgang Morgado, Barbara Wirths, Oliver Jahn, Olaf Bauer, Chris Esselmann, Hermann Schuchhardt, Johannes Wiltfang, Jens |
author_facet | Klafki, Hans-Wolfgang Morgado, Barbara Wirths, Oliver Jahn, Olaf Bauer, Chris Esselmann, Hermann Schuchhardt, Johannes Wiltfang, Jens |
author_sort | Klafki, Hans-Wolfgang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A reduced amyloid-β (Aβ)42/40 peptide ratio in blood plasma represents a peripheral biomarker of the cerebral amyloid pathology observed in Alzheimer’s disease brains. The magnitude of the measurable effect in plasma is smaller than in cerebrospinal fluid, presumably due to dilution by Aβ peptides originating from peripheral sources. We hypothesized that the observable effect in plasma can be accentuated to some extent by specifically measuring Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 instead of AβX–42 and AβX–40. METHODS: We assessed the plasma AβX–42/X–40 and Aβ1–42/1–40 ratios in an idealized clinical sample by semi-automated Aβ immunoprecipitation followed by closely related sandwich immunoassays. The amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative groups (dichotomized according to Aβ42/40 in cerebrospinal fluid) were compared regarding the median difference, mean difference, standardized effect size (Cohen’s d) and receiver operating characteristic curves. For statistical evaluation, we applied bootstrapping. RESULTS: The median Aβ1–42/1–40 ratio was 20.86% lower in amyloid-positive subjects than in the amyloid-negative group, while the median AβX–42/X–40 ratio was only 15.56% lower. The relative mean difference between amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative subjects was −18.34% for plasma Aβ1–42/1–40 compared to −15.50% for AβX–42/X–40. Cohen’s d was 1.73 for Aβ1–42/1–40 and 1.48 for plasma AβX–42/X–40. Unadjusted p-values < 0.05 were obtained after .632 bootstrapping for all three parameters. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated very similar areas under the curves for plasma Aβ1–42/1–40 and AβX–42/X–40. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the hypothesis that the relatively small difference in the plasma Aβ42/40 ratio between subjects with and without evidence of brain amyloidosis can be accentuated by specifically measuring Aβ1–42/1–40 instead of AβX–42/X–40. A simplified theoretical model explaining this observation is presented. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12987-022-00390-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9719149 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97191492022-12-04 Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40? Klafki, Hans-Wolfgang Morgado, Barbara Wirths, Oliver Jahn, Olaf Bauer, Chris Esselmann, Hermann Schuchhardt, Johannes Wiltfang, Jens Fluids Barriers CNS Research BACKGROUND: A reduced amyloid-β (Aβ)42/40 peptide ratio in blood plasma represents a peripheral biomarker of the cerebral amyloid pathology observed in Alzheimer’s disease brains. The magnitude of the measurable effect in plasma is smaller than in cerebrospinal fluid, presumably due to dilution by Aβ peptides originating from peripheral sources. We hypothesized that the observable effect in plasma can be accentuated to some extent by specifically measuring Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 instead of AβX–42 and AβX–40. METHODS: We assessed the plasma AβX–42/X–40 and Aβ1–42/1–40 ratios in an idealized clinical sample by semi-automated Aβ immunoprecipitation followed by closely related sandwich immunoassays. The amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative groups (dichotomized according to Aβ42/40 in cerebrospinal fluid) were compared regarding the median difference, mean difference, standardized effect size (Cohen’s d) and receiver operating characteristic curves. For statistical evaluation, we applied bootstrapping. RESULTS: The median Aβ1–42/1–40 ratio was 20.86% lower in amyloid-positive subjects than in the amyloid-negative group, while the median AβX–42/X–40 ratio was only 15.56% lower. The relative mean difference between amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative subjects was −18.34% for plasma Aβ1–42/1–40 compared to −15.50% for AβX–42/X–40. Cohen’s d was 1.73 for Aβ1–42/1–40 and 1.48 for plasma AβX–42/X–40. Unadjusted p-values < 0.05 were obtained after .632 bootstrapping for all three parameters. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated very similar areas under the curves for plasma Aβ1–42/1–40 and AβX–42/X–40. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the hypothesis that the relatively small difference in the plasma Aβ42/40 ratio between subjects with and without evidence of brain amyloidosis can be accentuated by specifically measuring Aβ1–42/1–40 instead of AβX–42/X–40. A simplified theoretical model explaining this observation is presented. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12987-022-00390-4. BioMed Central 2022-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9719149/ /pubmed/36461122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12987-022-00390-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 | Research Klafki, Hans-Wolfgang Morgado, Barbara Wirths, Oliver Jahn, Olaf Bauer, Chris Esselmann, Hermann Schuchhardt, Johannes Wiltfang, Jens Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40? |
title | Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40? |
title_full | Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40? |
title_fullStr | Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40? |
title_full_unstemmed | Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40? |
title_short | Is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease than AβX–42/X–40? |
title_sort | is plasma amyloid-β 1–42/1–40 a better biomarker for alzheimer’s disease than aβx–42/x–40? |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36461122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12987-022-00390-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT klafkihanswolfgang isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 AT morgadobarbara isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 AT wirthsoliver isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 AT jahnolaf isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 AT bauerchris isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 AT esselmannhermann isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 AT schuchhardtjohannes isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 AT wiltfangjens isplasmaamyloidb142140abetterbiomarkerforalzheimersdiseasethanabx42x40 |