4.7 Article

Peripheral F2-isoprostanes and F4-neuroprostanes are not increased in Alzheimer's disease

Journal

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages 175-179

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ana.10272

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA77839] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG16835, AG08017, AG05144] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK48831] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM15431] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Quantitative biomarkers of oxidative damage, such as the F-2-isoprostanes (IsoPs) and F-4-neuroprostanes (F-4-NeuroPs), may be useful in assessing progression and response to therapeutics in patients with Alzheimer's disease. F-2-IsoPs and F-4-NeuroPs are reproducibly increased in brain and cerebrospinal fluid of Alzheimer's disease patients; however, results in blood and urine have been conflicting. We tested the hypothesis that F-2-IsoPs and F-4-NeuroPs in plasma or urine quantitatively reflect oxidative damage to the central nervous system. Our results showed that urine levels of F-2-IsoPs or their major metabolite were not significantly different between 56 Alzheimer's disease patients and 34 controls. In addition, urine and cerebrospinal fluid F-2-IsoP levels in 32 Alzheimer's disease patients did not correlate. Supporting these conclusions, elevated rat cerebral F-2-IsoPs and F-4-NeuroPs after systemic exposure to kainic acid were not associated with a significant change in their plasma or urine levels. These results show that plasma and urine F-2-IsoPs and F-4-NeuroPs do not accurately reflect central nervous system levels of these biomarkers and are not reproducibly elevated in body fluids outside of central nervous system in Alzheimer's disease patients. These results should guide the organization of clinical trials now being planned for patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available