Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Rapid and sensitive RT-QuIC detection of human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease using cerebrospinal fluid
Orrú CD, Groveman BR, Hughson AG, Zanusso G, Coulthart MB, Caughey B.. mBio, 2015-01-20
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
Unlabelled Fast, definitive diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is important in assessing patient care options and transmission risks. Real-time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC) assays of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and nasal-brushing specimens are valuable in distinguishing CJD from non-CJD conditions but have required 2.5 to 5 days. Here, an improved RT-QuIC assay is described which identified positive CSF samples within 4 to 14 h with better analytical sensitivity. Moreover, analysis of 11 CJD patients demonstrated that while 7 were RT-QuIC positive using the previous conditions, 10 were positive using the new assay. In these and further analyses, a total of 46 of 48 CSF samples from sporadic CJD patients were positive, while all 39 non-CJD patients were negative, giving 95.8% diagnostic sensitivity and 100% specificity. This second-generation RT-QuIC assay markedly improved the speed and sensitivity of detecting prion seeds in CSF specimens from CJD patients. This should enhance prospects for rapid and accurate ante mortem CJD diagnosis. Importance A long-standing problem in dealing with various neurodegenerative protein misfolding diseases is early and accurate diagnosis. This issue is particularly important with human prion diseases, such as CJD, because prions are deadly, transmissible, and unusually resistant to decontamination. The recently developed RT-QuIC test allows for highly sensitive and specific detection of CJD in human cerebrospinal fluid and is being broadly implemented as a key diagnostic tool. However, as currently applied, RT-QuIC takes 2.5 to 5 days and misses 11 to 23% of CJD cases. Now, we have markedly improved RT-QuIC analysis of human CSF such that CJD and non-CJD patients can be discriminated in a matter of hours rather than days with enhanced sensitivity. These improvements should allow for much faster, more accurate, and practical testing for CJD. In broader terms, our study provides a prototype for tests for misfolded protein aggregates that cause many important amyloid diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and tauopathies.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Orrú, C. D., Groveman, B. R., Hughson, A. G., Zanusso, G., Coulthart, M. B., & Caughey, B. (2015). Rapid and sensitive RT-QuIC detection of human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease using cerebrospinal fluid. mBio. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02451-14
Vancouver
Orrú CD, Groveman BR, Hughson AG, Zanusso G, Coulthart MB, Caughey B. Rapid and sensitive RT-QuIC detection of human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease using cerebrospinal fluid. mBio. 2015. doi:10.1128/mbio.02451-14. PMID: 25604790.
BibTeX
@article{orru2015-25604790,
author = {Orrú, C. D. and Groveman, B. R. and Hughson, A. G. and Zanusso, G. and Coulthart, M. B. and Caughey, B.},
title = {{Rapid and sensitive RT-QuIC detection of human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease using cerebrospinal fluid}},
journal = {mBio},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1128/mbio.02451-14},
pmid = {25604790},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02451-14}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Moreover, analysis of 11 CJD patients demonstrated that while 7 were RT-QuIC positive using the previous conditions, 10 were positive using the new assay.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants46
- Effect size95.8%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (mBio) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 46 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25604790) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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.