Home › Research › Drug development
Poly(GR) and poly(GA) in cerebrospinal fluid as potential biomarkers for C9ORF72-ALS/FTD
Krishnan G, Raitcheva D, Bartlett D, Prudencio M, McKenna-Yasek DM, Douthwright C, Oskarsson BE, Ladha S et al.. Nature communications, 2022-05-19
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
GGGGCC repeat expansion in C9ORF72, which can be translated in both sense and antisense directions into five dipeptide repeat (DPR) proteins, including poly(GP), poly(GR), and poly(GA), is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Here we developed sensitive assays that can detect poly(GA) and poly(GR) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with C9ORF72 mutations. CSF poly(GA) and poly(GR) levels did not correlate with age at disease onset, disease duration, or rate of decline of ALS Functional Rating Scale, and the average levels of these DPR proteins were similar in symptomatic and pre-symptomatic patients with C9ORF72 mutations. However, in a patient with C9ORF72-ALS who was treated with antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) targeting the aberrant C9ORF72 transcript, CSF poly(GA) and poly(GR) levels decreased approximately 50% within 6 weeks, indicating they may serve as sensitive fluid-based biomarkers in studies directed against the production of GGGGCC repeat RNAs or DPR proteins.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Krishnan, G., Raitcheva, D., Bartlett, D., Prudencio, M., McKenna-Yasek, D. M., Douthwright, C., et al. (2022). Poly(GR) and poly(GA) in cerebrospinal fluid as potential biomarkers for C9ORF72-ALS/FTD. Nature communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30387-4
Vancouver
Krishnan G, Raitcheva D, Bartlett D, Prudencio M, McKenna-Yasek DM, Douthwright C, et al. Poly(GR) and poly(GA) in cerebrospinal fluid as potential biomarkers for C9ORF72-ALS/FTD. Nature communications. 2022. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30387-4. PMID: 35589711.
BibTeX
@article{krishnan2022-35589711,
author = {Krishnan, G. and Raitcheva, D. and Bartlett, D. and Prudencio, M. and McKenna-Yasek, D. M. and Douthwright, C. and Oskarsson, B. E. and Ladha, S. and others},
title = {{Poly(GR) and poly(GA) in cerebrospinal fluid as potential biomarkers for C9ORF72-ALS/FTD}},
journal = {Nature communications},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1038/s41467-022-30387-4},
pmid = {35589711},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30387-4}
}
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
- GGGGCC repeat expansion in C9ORF72, which can be translated in both sense and antisense directions into five dipeptide repeat (DPR) proteins, including poly(GP), poly(GR), and poly(GA), is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD).
- Here we developed sensitive assays that can detect poly(GA) and poly(GR) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with C9ORF72 mutations.
- CSF poly(GA) and poly(GR) levels did not correlate with age at disease onset, disease duration, or rate of decline of ALS Functional Rating Scale, and the average levels of these DPR proteins were similar in symptomatic and pre-symptomatic patients with C9ORF72 mutations.
- However, in a patient with C9ORF72-ALS who was treated with antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) targeting the aberrant C9ORF72 transcript, CSF poly(GA) and poly(GR) levels decreased approximately 50% within 6 weeks, indicating they may serve as sensitive fluid-based biomarkers in studies directed against the production of GGGGCC repeat RNAs or DPR proteins.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Nature communications) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 35589711) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.