Citations

AbstractThe last decade has seen a substantial increase in research focused on the identification of blood‐based biomarkers that have utility in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Blood‐based biomarkers have significant advantages of being time‐ and cost‐efficient as well as reduced invasiveness and increased patient acceptance. Despite these advantages and increased research efforts, the field has been hampered by lack of reproducibility and an unclear path for moving basic discovery toward clinical utilization. Here we reviewed the recent literature on blood‐based biomarkers in AD to provide a current state of the art. In addition, a collaborative model is proposed that leverages academic and industry strengths to facilitate the field in moving past discovery only work and toward clinical use. Key resources are provided. This new public‐private partnership model is intended to circumvent the traditional handoff model and provide a clear and useful paradigm for the advancement of biomarker science in AD and other neurodegenerative diseases.

AbstractIntroductionThis study investigated the comparability of potential Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers across blood fractions and assay platforms.MethodsNonfasting 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.ResultsOn 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).DiscussionThe current findings highlight the importance of considering blood fractions and assay platforms when searching for AD relevant biomarkers.

AbstractIntroductionWe describe Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Biomarker Core progress including: the Biobank; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta (Aβ1–42), t‐tau, and p‐tau181 analytical performance, definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD) profile for plaque, and tangle burden detection and increased risk for progression to AD; AD disease heterogeneity; progress in standardization; and new studies using ADNI biofluids.MethodsReview publications authored or coauthored by ADNI Biomarker core faculty and selected non‐ADNI studies to deepen the understanding and interpretation of CSF Aβ1–42, t‐tau, and p‐tau181 data.ResultsCSF AD biomarker measurements with the qualified AlzBio3 immunoassay detects neuropathologic AD hallmarks in preclinical and prodromal disease stages, based on CSF studies in non‐ADNI living subjects followed by the autopsy confirmation of AD. Collaboration across ADNI cores generated the temporal ordering model of AD biomarkers varying across individuals because of genetic/environmental factors that increase/decrease resilience to AD pathologies.DiscussionFurther studies will refine this model and enable the use of biomarkers studied in ADNI clinically and in disease‐modifying therapeutic trials.