Home › Research › Biomarkers
The potential of pathological protein fragmentation in blood-based biomarker development for dementia - with emphasis on Alzheimer's disease
Inekci D, Jonesco DS, Kennard S, Karsdal MA, Henriksen K.. Frontiers in neurology, 2015-05-11
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The diagnosis of dementia is challenging and early stages are rarely detected limiting the possibilities for early intervention. Another challenge is the overlap in the clinical features across the different dementia types leading to difficulties in the differential diagnosis. Identifying biomarkers that can detect the pre-dementia stage and allow differential diagnosis could provide an opportunity for timely and optimal intervention strategies. Also, such biomarkers could help in selection and inclusion of the right patients in clinical trials of both Alzheimer's disease and other dementia treatment candidates. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been the most investigated source of biomarkers and several candidate proteins have been identified. However, looking solely at protein levels is too simplistic to provide enough detailed information to differentiate between dementias, as there is a significant crossover between the proteins involved in the different types of dementia. Additionally, CSF sampling makes these biomarkers challenging for presymptomatic identification. We need to focus on disease-specific protein fragmentation to find a fragment pattern unique for each separate dementia type - a form of protein fragmentology. Targeting protein fragments generated by disease-specific combinations of proteins and proteases opposed to detecting the intact protein could reduce the overlap between diagnostic groups as the extent of processing as well as which proteins and proteases constitute the major hallmark of each dementia type differ. In addition, the fragments could be detectable in blood as they may be able to cross the blood-brain barrier due to their smaller size. In this review, the potential of the fragment-based biomarker discovery for dementia diagnosis and prognosis is discussed, especially highlighting how the knowledge from CSF protein biomarkers can be used to guide blood-based biomarker development.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Inekci, D., Jonesco, D. S., Kennard, S., Karsdal, M. A., & Henriksen, K. (2015). The potential of pathological protein fragmentation in blood-based biomarker development for dementia - with emphasis on Alzheimer's disease. Frontiers in neurology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00090
Vancouver
Inekci D, Jonesco DS, Kennard S, Karsdal MA, Henriksen K. The potential of pathological protein fragmentation in blood-based biomarker development for dementia - with emphasis on Alzheimer's disease. Frontiers in neurology. 2015. doi:10.3389/fneur.2015.00090. PMID: 26029153.
BibTeX
@article{inekci2015-26029153,
author = {Inekci, D. and Jonesco, D. S. and Kennard, S. and Karsdal, M. A. and Henriksen, K.},
title = {{The potential of pathological protein fragmentation in blood-based biomarker development for dementia - with emphasis on Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Frontiers in neurology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.3389/fneur.2015.00090},
pmid = {26029153},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2015.00090}
}
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
- However, looking solely at protein levels is too simplistic to provide enough detailed information to differentiate between dementias, as there is a significant crossover between the proteins involved in the different types of dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in neurology) |
| 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 | 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 26029153) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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 “blood-based-biomarkers”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based-biomarkers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.