Home › Research › Biomarkers
Correlations between serum and CSF pNfH levels in ALS, FTD and controls: a comparison of three analytical approaches
Wilke C, Pujol-Calderón F, Barro C, Stransky E, Blennow K, Michalak Z, Deuschle C, Jeromin A et al.. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2019-09-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Background Phosphorylated neurofilament heavy (pNfH), a neuronal cytoskeleton protein, might provide a promising blood biomarker of neuronal damage in neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). The best analytical approaches to measure pNfH levels and whether serum levels correlate with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels in NDDs remain to be determined. Methods We here compared analytical sensitivity and reliability of three novel analytical approaches (homebrew Simoa, commercial Simoa and ELISA) for quantifying pNfH in both CSF and serum in samples of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and control subjects. Results While all three assays showed highly correlated CSF measurements, Simoa assays also yielded high between-assay correlations for serum measurements (ϱ = 0.95). Serum levels also correlated strongly with CSF levels for Simoa-based measurements (both ϱ = 0.62). All three assays allowed distinguishing ALS from controls by increased CSF pNfH levels, and Simoa assays also by increased serum pNfH levels. pNfH levels were also increased in FTD. Conclusions pNfH concentrations in CSF and, if measured by Simoa assays, in blood might provide a sensitive and reliable biomarker of neuronal damage, with good between-assay correlations. Serum pNfH levels measured by Simoa assays closely reflect CSF levels, rendering serum pNfH an easily accessible blood biomarker of neuronal damage in NDDs.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wilke, C., Pujol-Calderón, F., Barro, C., Stransky, E., Blennow, K., Michalak, Z., et al. (2019). Correlations between serum and CSF pNfH levels in ALS, FTD and controls: a comparison of three analytical approaches. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0015
Vancouver
Wilke C, Pujol-Calderón F, Barro C, Stransky E, Blennow K, Michalak Z, et al. Correlations between serum and CSF pNfH levels in ALS, FTD and controls: a comparison of three analytical approaches. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. 2019. doi:10.1515/cclm-2019-0015. PMID: 31251725.
BibTeX
@article{wilke2019-31251725,
author = {Wilke, C. and Pujol-Calderón, F. and Barro, C. and Stransky, E. and Blennow, K. and Michalak, Z. and Deuschle, C. and Jeromin, A. and others},
title = {{Correlations between serum and CSF pNfH levels in ALS, FTD and controls: a comparison of three analytical approaches}},
journal = {Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1515/cclm-2019-0015},
pmid = {31251725},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0015}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results While all three assays showed highly correlated CSF measurements, Simoa assays also yielded high between-assay correlations for serum measurements (ϱ = 0.95).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31251725) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “analytical”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “analytical”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.