Home › Research › Biomarkers
Storage time affects the level and diagnostic efficacy of plasma biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases
Zhao L, Zhang M, Li Q, Wang X, Lu J, Han Y, Cai Y.. Neural regeneration research, 2024-04-16
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
JOURNAL/nrgr/04.03/01300535-202508000-00027/figure1/v/2024-09-30T120553Z/r/image-tiff Several promising plasma biomarker proteins, such as amyloid-β (Aβ), tau, neurofilament light chain, and glial fibrillary acidic protein, are widely used for the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. However, little is known about the long-term stability of these biomarker proteins in plasma samples stored at -80°C. We aimed to explore how storage time would affect the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers using a large cohort. Plasma samples from 229 cognitively unimpaired individuals, encompassing healthy controls and those experiencing subjective cognitive decline, as well as 99 patients with cognitive impairment, comprising those with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, were acquired from the Sino Longitudinal Study on Cognitive Decline project. These samples were stored at -80°C for up to 6 years before being used in this study. Our results showed that plasma levels of Aβ42, Aβ40, neurofilament light chain, and glial fibrillary acidic protein were not significantly correlated with sample storage time. However, the level of total tau showed a negative correlation with sample storage time. Notably, in individuals without cognitive impairment, plasma levels of total protein and tau phosphorylated protein threonine 181 (p-tau181)also showed a negative correlation with sample storage time. This was not observed in individuals with cognitive impairment. Consequently, we speculate that the diagnostic accuracy of plasma p-tau181 and the p-tau181 to total tau ratio may be influenced by sample storage time. Therefore, caution is advised when using these plasma biomarkers for the identification of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease. Furthermore, in cohort studies, it is important to consider the impact of storage time on the overall results.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhao, L., Zhang, M., Li, Q., Wang, X., Lu, J., Han, Y., et al. (2025). Storage time affects the level and diagnostic efficacy of plasma biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases. Neural regeneration research. https://doi.org/10.4103/nrr.nrr-d-23-01983
Vancouver
Zhao L, Zhang M, Li Q, Wang X, Lu J, Han Y, et al. Storage time affects the level and diagnostic efficacy of plasma biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases. Neural regeneration research. 2025. doi:10.4103/nrr.nrr-d-23-01983. PMID: 39359094.
BibTeX
@article{zhao2025-39359094,
author = {Zhao, L. and Zhang, M. and Li, Q. and Wang, X. and Lu, J. and Han, Y. and Cai, Y.},
title = {{Storage time affects the level and diagnostic efficacy of plasma biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases}},
journal = {Neural regeneration research},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.4103/nrr.nrr-d-23-01983},
pmid = {39359094},
url = {https://doi.org/10.4103/nrr.nrr-d-23-01983}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Our results showed that plasma levels of Aβ42, Aβ40, neurofilament light chain, and glial fibrillary acidic protein were not significantly correlated with sample storage time.
- Furthermore, in cohort studies, it is important to consider the impact of storage time on the overall results.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants99
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neural regeneration research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 99 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 39359094) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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 “neurodegenerative”
7 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurodegenerative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 7 tagged studies.