Advertisement

Translational Neuroscience

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 234–240 | Cite as

Comparison of two commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for cerebrospinal fluid measurement of amyloid β1–42 and total tau

  • Mirjana Babić
  • Željka Vogrinc
  • Andrea Diana
  • Nataša Klepac
  • Fran Borovečki
  • Patrick R. Hof
  • Goran Šimić
Research Article

Abstract

Amyloid β1–42 (Aβ1–42), total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau) are the main cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Detection of AD is critically important in view of the growing number of potential new drugs that may influence the course of the disease in its early phases. However, cut-off levels for these CSF biomarkers have not yet been established. Variability in absolute concentrations of AD biomarkers is high among studies and significant differences were noticed even within the same datasets. Variability in biomarkers levels in these assays may be due to many aspects of operating procedures. Standardization of pre-analytical and analytical procedures in collection, treatment, and storage of CSF samples is crucial because differences in sample handling can drastically influence results. Multicenter studies showed that usage of ELISA kits from different manufacturers also affects outcome. So far only very few studies tested the efficiency of ELISA kits produced by different vendors. In this study, the performance of Innogenetics (Gent, Belgium) and Invitrogen (Camarillo, CA, USA) ELISA kits for t-tau and Aβ1–42 was tested. Passing-Bablok analysis showed significant differences between Invitrogen and Innogenetics ELISA methods, making it impossible to use them interchangeably.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s disease Amyloid β1–42 Biomarkers Cerebrospinal fluid ELISA Standardization Tau proteins 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Ferri C.P., Prince M., Brayne C., Brodaty H., Fratiglioni L., Ganguli M., et al., Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study, Lancet, 2005, 366, 2112–2117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Cummings J.L., Khachaturian Z.S., Definitions and diagnostic criteria, In: Gauthier S. (ed.) Clinical diagnosis and management of Alzheimer’s disease, 2nd ed., Martin Dunitz, London, 2002, 3–13Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Wiltfang J., Esselman H., Maler J.M., Bleich S., Huther G., Kornhuber J., Molecular biology of Alzheimer’s dementia and its clinical relevance to early diagnosis and new therapeutic strategies, Gerontology, 2001, 47, 65–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hansson O., Zetterberg H., Buchhave P., Londos E., Blennow K., Minthon L., Association between CSF biomarkers and incipient Alzheimer’s disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a follow-up study, Lancet Neurol., 2006, 5, 228–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Mattsson N., Zetterberg H., Hansson O., Andreasen N., Parnetti L., Jonsson M., et al., CSF biomarkers and incipient Alzheimer disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment, J. Am. Med. Assoc., 2009, 302, 385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Šimić G., Boban M., Šarac H., Grbić K., Hof P.R., Hamann C., et al., CSF tau proteins in evaluation of patients with suspected dementia, Neurodegen. Dis., 2007, 4, 135–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Šimić G., Boban M., Hof P.R., Cerebrospinal fluid phosphorylated tau proteins as predictors of Alzheimer’s disease in subjects with mild cognitive impairment, Period. Biol., 2008, 110, 27–30Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Boban M., Grbić K., Mladinov M., Hof P.R., Süβmair C., Ackl N., et al., Cerebrospinal fluid markers in differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia, Coll. Antropol., 2008, 32, 31–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Boban M., Šarac H., Mimica N., Mladinov M., Süβmair C., Ackl N., et al., CSF tau proteins in differential diagnosis of dementia, Transl. Neurosci., 2010, 1, 43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Spies P.E., Slats D., Sjögren J.M., Kremer B.P., Verhey F.R., Rikkert M.G., et al., The cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta42/40 ratio in the differentiation of Alzheimer’s disease from non-Alzheimer’s dementia, Curr. Alzheimer Res., 2010, 7, 470–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Motter R., Vigo-Pelfrey C., Kholodenko D., Barbour R., Johnson-Wood K., Galasko D., et al., Reduction of β-amyloid peptide 42 in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Ann. Neurol., 1995, 38, 643–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Blennow K., Hampel H., CSF markers for incipient Alzheimer’s disease, Lancet Neurol., 2003, 2, 605–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Sunderland T., Linker G., Mirza N., Putnam K.T., Friedman D.L., Kimmel L.H., et al., Decreased beta-amyloid1–42 and increased tau levels in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Alzheimer disease, J. Am. Med. Assoc., 2003, 289, 2094–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Verwey N.A., van der Flier W.M., Blennow K., Clark C., Sokolow S., De Deyn P.P., et al., A worldwide multicentre comparison of assays for cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease, Ann. Clin. Biochem., 2009, 46, 235–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hort J., Bratos A., Pirttila T., Scheltens P., Use of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in diagnosis of dementia across Europe, Eur. J. Neurol., 2010, 17, 90–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Mattsson N., Andreasson U., Persson S., Arai H., Batish S.D., Bernardini S., et al., The Alzheimer’s Association external quality control program for cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, Alzheimers Dement., 2011, 7, 386–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Vanderstichele H., Bibl M., Engelborghs S., Le Bastard N., Lewczuk P., Molinuevo J.L., et al., Standardization of preanalytical aspects of cerebrospinal fluid biomarker testing for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis: a consensus paper from the Alzheimer’s Biomarkers Standardization Initiative, Alzheimers Dement., 2012, 8, 65–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Teunissen C.E., Verwey N.A., Kester M.I., van Uffelen K., Blankenstein M.A., Standardization of assay procedures for analysis of the CSF biomarkers amyloid beta (1–42), tau, and phosphorylated tau in Alzheimer’s disease: report of an international workshop, Int. J. Alzheimers Dis., 2010, pii: 635053Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Boban M., Malojčić B., Mimica N., Vuković S., Zrilić I., Hof P.R., et al., The reliability and validity of the Mini-Mental State Examination in the elderly Croatian population, Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord., 2012, 33, 385–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    McKhann G., Drachman D., Folstein M., Katzman R., Price D., Stadlan E.M., Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDSADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease, Neurology, 1984, 34, 939–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Petersen R.C., Smith G.E., Waring S.C., Ivnik R.J., Tangalos E.G., Kokmen E., Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome, Arch. Neurol., 1999, 56, 303–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Bablok W., Passing H., Application of statistical procedures in analytical instrument testing, J. Automat. Chem., 1985, 7, 74–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Bilić-Zulle L., Comparison of methods: Passing and Bablok regression, Biochem. Med., 2011, 21, 49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Mattsson N., Blennow H., Zetterberg H., Inter-laboratory variation in cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease: united we stand, divided we fall, Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2010, 48, 603–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Verwey N.A., Bouwman F.H., van der Flier W.M., Veerhuis R., Scheltens P., Blankenstein M.A., Variability in longitudinal cerebrospinal fluid tau and phosphorylated tau measurements, Clin. Chem. Lab. Med., 2008, 46, 1300–1304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Bjerke M., Portelius E., Minthon L., Wallin A., Anckarsäter H., Anckarsäter R., et al., Confounding factors influencing amyloid beta concentration in cerebrospinal fluid, Int. J. Alzheimers Dis., 2010, pii: 986310Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Teunissen C.E., Petzold A., Bennett J.L., Berven F.S., Brundin L., Comabella M., et al., A consensus protocol for the standardization of cerebrospinal fluid collection and biobanking, Neurology, 2009, 73, 1914–1922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Fialova L., Bartos A., Svarcova J., Dolezil D., Malbohan I., Stanovení tau proteinu v mozkomíšním moku pacientů s roztroušenou sklerózou dvěma soupravami ELISA [Tau protein determination in cerebrospinal fluid in patients with multiple sclerosis by two ELISA kits], Klin. Biochem. Metab., 2011, 19, 113–118Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Regeniter A., Kuhle J., Baumann J., Sollberger M., Herdener M., Kunze U., et al., Biomarkers of dementia: comparison of electrochemiluminescence results and reference ranges with conventional ELISA, Methods, 2012, 56, 494–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Olsson A., Vanderstichele H., Andreasen N., De Meyer G., Wallin A., Holmberg B., et al., Simultaneous measurement of β-amyloid(1–42), total tau, and phosphorylated tau (Thr181) in cerebrospinal fluid by the xMAP technology, Clin. Chem., 2005, 51, 336–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Reijn T.S., Rikkert M.O., van Geel W.J., de Jong D., Verbeek M.M., Diagnostic accuracy of ELISA and xMAP technology for analysis of amyloid beta (42) and tau proteins, Clin. Chem., 2007, 53, 859–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Fagan A.M., Shaw L.M., Xiong C., Vanderstichele H., Mintun M.A., Trojanowski J.Q., et al., Comparison of analytical platforms for cerebrospinal fluid measures of Aβ1–42, total tau and p-tau181 for identifying Alzheimer’s disease amyloid plaque pathology, Arch. Neurol., 2011, 68, 1137–1144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Wang L.-S., Leung Y.Y., Chang S.-K., Leight S., Knapik-Czajka M., Baek Y., et al., Comparison of xMAP and ELISA assays for detecting cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, J. Alzheimers Dis., 2012, 31, 439–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Le Bastard N., Coart E., Vanderstichele H., Vanmechelen E., Martin J.J., Engelborghs S., Comparison of two analytical platforms for the clinical qualification of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers in pathologically-confirmed dementia, J. Alzheimers Dis., 2013, 33, 117–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Sjögren M., Vanderstichele H., Agren H., Zachrisson O., Edsbagge M., Wikkelsø C., et al., Tau and Abeta42 in cerebrospinal fluid from healthy adults 21–93 years of age: establishment of reference values, Clin. Chem., 2001, 47, 1776–1781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Lewczuk P., Kornhuber J., Vanderstichele H., Vanmechelen E., Esselmann H., Bibl M., et al., Multiplexed quantification of dementia biomarkers in the CSF of patients with early dementias and MCI: a multicenter study, Neurobiol. Aging, 2008, 29, 812–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Shaw L.M., Vanderstichele H., Knapik-Czajka M., Figurski M., Coart E., Blennow K., et al., Qualification of the analytical and clinical performance of CSF biomarker analyses in ADNI, Acta Neuropathol., 2011, 121, 597–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Shaw L.M., Korecka M., Clark C.M., Lee V.M.-Y., Trojanowski J.Q., Biomarkers of neurodegeneration for diagnosis and monitoring therapeutics, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2007, 6, 295–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirjana Babić
    • 1
  • Željka Vogrinc
    • 2
  • Andrea Diana
    • 3
  • Nataša Klepac
    • 4
  • Fran Borovečki
    • 4
  • Patrick R. Hof
    • 5
  • Goran Šimić
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Neuroscience, Croatian Institute for Brain ResearchUniversity of Zagreb Medical SchoolZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Laboratory for Neurobiochemistry, Department of Laboratory DiagnosticsUniversity Hospital Centre ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.Laboratory of Neurogenesis and Neuropoiesis, Department of Biomedical SciencesUniversity of Cagliari, Città Universitaria di MonserratoMonserrato (Cagliari)Italy
  4. 4.Department for Functional Genomics, Center for Translational and Clinical Research, University of Zagreb Medical SchoolUniversity Hospital Center ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  5. 5.Fishberg Department of Neuroscience and Friedman Brain InstituteIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations