Pablo Mohaupt, Jana Kindermans, Jérôme Vialaret, Sarah Anderl-Straub, Leonie Werner, Sylvain Lehmann, Christophe Hirtz, Markus Otto, Patrick Oeckl
{"title":"Blood-based biomarkers and plasma Aβ assays in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia.","authors":"Pablo Mohaupt, Jana Kindermans, Jérôme Vialaret, Sarah Anderl-Straub, Leonie Werner, Sylvain Lehmann, Christophe Hirtz, Markus Otto, Patrick Oeckl","doi":"10.1186/s13195-024-01647-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The differentiation between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) can be complicated in the initial phase by shared symptoms and pathophysiological traits. Nevertheless, advancements in understanding AD's diverse pathobiology suggest the potential for establishing blood-based methods for differential diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We devised a novel assay combining immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry (IP-MS) to quantify Amyloid-beta (Aβ) peptides in plasma. We then assessed its performance against existing assays (Shimadzu and Simoa) and evaluated a range of other blood-based biomarkers, including GFAP, NfL, and pTau-181, for differentiating between AD and bvFTD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The novel IP-MS assay measuring the Aβ42/40 ratio demonstrated an AUC of 0.82 for differentiating AD from control subjects. While it did not significantly outperform the composite biomarker score from the Shimadzu assay (AUC = 0.79, P = 0.67), it significantly outperformed the Shimadzu Aβ42/40 ratio (AUC = 0.65, P = 0.037) and the Simoa Aβ42/40 assay (AUC = 0.57, P = 0.023). Aβ biomarkers provided limited utility in distinguishing AD from bvFTD. In contrast, pTau181 and GFAP exhibited strong discriminatory power for differentiating AD from bvFTD, with AUCs of 0.90 and 0.87, respectively. Combining pTau181 and GFAP enhanced diagnostic accuracy, achieving an AUC of 0.94.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We introduced a novel IP-MS assay that demonstrated comparable precision to the Shimadzu composite score in differentiating AD from non-neurodegenerative control groups. However, Aβ levels did not enhance the discrimination between AD and bvFTD. Furthermore, our findings support the utility of combining pTau181 and GFAP as a robust strategy for the blood-based differentiation of AD and bvFTD.</p>","PeriodicalId":7516,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","volume":"16 1","pages":"279"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11687143/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01647-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The differentiation between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) can be complicated in the initial phase by shared symptoms and pathophysiological traits. Nevertheless, advancements in understanding AD's diverse pathobiology suggest the potential for establishing blood-based methods for differential diagnosis.
Methods: We devised a novel assay combining immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry (IP-MS) to quantify Amyloid-beta (Aβ) peptides in plasma. We then assessed its performance against existing assays (Shimadzu and Simoa) and evaluated a range of other blood-based biomarkers, including GFAP, NfL, and pTau-181, for differentiating between AD and bvFTD.
Results: The novel IP-MS assay measuring the Aβ42/40 ratio demonstrated an AUC of 0.82 for differentiating AD from control subjects. While it did not significantly outperform the composite biomarker score from the Shimadzu assay (AUC = 0.79, P = 0.67), it significantly outperformed the Shimadzu Aβ42/40 ratio (AUC = 0.65, P = 0.037) and the Simoa Aβ42/40 assay (AUC = 0.57, P = 0.023). Aβ biomarkers provided limited utility in distinguishing AD from bvFTD. In contrast, pTau181 and GFAP exhibited strong discriminatory power for differentiating AD from bvFTD, with AUCs of 0.90 and 0.87, respectively. Combining pTau181 and GFAP enhanced diagnostic accuracy, achieving an AUC of 0.94.
Conclusion: We introduced a novel IP-MS assay that demonstrated comparable precision to the Shimadzu composite score in differentiating AD from non-neurodegenerative control groups. However, Aβ levels did not enhance the discrimination between AD and bvFTD. Furthermore, our findings support the utility of combining pTau181 and GFAP as a robust strategy for the blood-based differentiation of AD and bvFTD.
阿尔茨海默病(AD)和行为变异性额颞叶痴呆(bvFTD)之间的区分在初始阶段可能由于共同的症状和病理生理特征而变得复杂。然而,对阿尔茨海默病不同病理生物学的理解的进步表明,建立基于血液的鉴别诊断方法是有潜力的。方法:建立了一种结合免疫沉淀和质谱(IP-MS)测定血浆中β淀粉样蛋白(a β)肽的新方法。然后,我们评估了其与现有检测方法(Shimadzu和Simoa)的性能,并评估了一系列其他基于血液的生物标志物,包括GFAP、NfL和pTau-181,用于区分AD和bvFTD。结果:新型IP-MS法测定a - β42/40比值,鉴别AD与对照组的AUC为0.82。虽然没有显著优于Shimadzu法的综合生物标志物评分(AUC = 0.79, P = 0.67),但显著优于Shimadzu a - β42/40比(AUC = 0.65, P = 0.037)和Simoa a - β42/40法(AUC = 0.57, P = 0.023)。Aβ生物标志物在区分AD和bvFTD方面的效用有限。相比之下,pTau181和GFAP在区分AD和bvFTD方面表现出较强的区分能力,auc分别为0.90和0.87。pTau181和GFAP联合使用可提高诊断准确性,AUC为0.94。结论:我们引入了一种新的IP-MS分析方法,在区分AD与非神经退行性对照组方面具有与Shimadzu综合评分相当的精度。然而,Aβ水平并没有增强AD和bvFTD之间的区别。此外,我们的研究结果支持将pTau181和GFAP结合作为AD和bvFTD血液分化的有效策略。
期刊介绍:
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on translational research into Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. It publishes open-access basic research, clinical trials, drug discovery and development studies, and epidemiologic studies. The journal also includes reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, debates, and reports. All articles published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy are included in several reputable databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) and Scopus.