Home › Research › TREM2 and immune genetics
Recent Evidence in Epigenomics and Proteomics Biomarkers for Early and Minimally Invasive Diagnosis of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases
Mayo S, Benito-León J, Peña-Bautista C, Baquero M, Cháfer-Pericás C.. Current neuropharmacology, 2021-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's diseases (PD) show deposits of improperly folded modified proteins. Protein expression mechanisms are involved since the early stages. Several studies evaluated epigenomics and proteomics profiles in these patients, with promising results. In general, they focused on early, specific, and minimally invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of AD and PD. Objectives This review aimed at summarizing results to find the most reliable evidence in the field. Results Among epigenomics studies, there is a focus on microRNAs (miRNAs) as candidate diagnostic biomarkers for AD or PD from blood samples like miR-342-3p, miR-107, miR-106a-5p, miR-106b- 5p, miR-195, and miR-19b. In addition, DNA methylation has been tested in a few works, obtaining significant differences in some genes (NCAPH2/LMF2 COASY, SPINT1, BDNFTREM1, TREM2, NPAS2, PDE4D), which could be useful for evaluating the disease progression as well as potential risk factors. Regarding proteomics, most of the studies were untargeted and used plasma or serum samples. In general, they highlighted the importance of coagulation, inflammation pathways, and oxidative stress. Among targeted studies, some proteins (phosphorylated tau, C reactive protein (CRP), interleukins, necrosis factors, transferrin, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilaments) showed different plasma levels in AD and PD patients in comparison with healthy participants. Finally, a few studies have identified specific-AD and PD epigenetic and proteomic biomarkers (ApoE and oxidized DJ-1) in comparison with other similar pathologies. Conclusion In general, there is a common lack of clinical validation of these potential biomarkers because of which its use in clinical practice is still limited.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mayo, S., Benito-León, J., Peña-Bautista, C., Baquero, M., & Cháfer-Pericás, C. (2021). Recent Evidence in Epigenomics and Proteomics Biomarkers for Early and Minimally Invasive Diagnosis of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases. Current neuropharmacology. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159x19666201223154009
Vancouver
Mayo S, Benito-León J, Peña-Bautista C, Baquero M, Cháfer-Pericás C. Recent Evidence in Epigenomics and Proteomics Biomarkers for Early and Minimally Invasive Diagnosis of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases. Current neuropharmacology. 2021. doi:10.2174/1570159x19666201223154009. PMID: 33357195.
BibTeX
@article{mayo2021-33357195,
author = {Mayo, S. and Benito-León, J. and Peña-Bautista, C. and Baquero, M. and Cháfer-Pericás, C.},
title = {{Recent Evidence in Epigenomics and Proteomics Biomarkers for Early and Minimally Invasive Diagnosis of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases}},
journal = {Current neuropharmacology},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.2174/1570159x19666201223154009},
pmid = {33357195},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159x19666201223154009}
}
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
- Several studies evaluated epigenomics and proteomics profiles in these patients, with promising results.
- Objectives This review aimed at summarizing results to find the most reliable evidence in the field.
- Results Among epigenomics studies, there is a focus on microRNAs (miRNAs) as candidate diagnostic biomarkers for AD or PD from blood samples like miR-342-3p, miR-107, miR-106a-5p, miR-106b- 5p, miR-195, and miR-19b.
- In addition, DNA methylation has been tested in a few works, obtaining significant differences in some genes (NCAPH2/LMF2 COASY, SPINT1, BDNFTREM1, TREM2, NPAS2, PDE4D), which could be useful for evaluating the disease progression as well as potential risk factors.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current neuropharmacology) |
| 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 | 2021 — 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 33357195) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.
Related studies in TREM2 and immune genetics
Also tagged “invasive”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “invasive”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.