4.7 Review

Proteomics as a reliable approach for discovery of blood-based Alzheimer's disease biomarkers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

AGEING RESEARCH REVIEWS
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101066

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Mild cognitive impairment; Blood-based biomarkers; Proteomics; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia [600RMI/LRGS 5/3 [3/2012]]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to gauge the impact of proteomics in discovery of Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood-based biomarkers, this study had systematically reviewed articles published between 1984-2019. Articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed for replicable candidate biomarkers (CB). Of the 1651 articles that were identified, 17 case-control and two cohort studies, as well as three combined case-control and longitudinal designs were shortlisted. A total of 207 AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) CB were discovered, with 48 reported in > 2 studies. This review highlights six CB, namely alpha-2-macroglobulin (alpha 2M)(ps), pancreatic polypeptide (PP)(ps), apolipoprotein A-1 (ApoA-1)(ps), afamin(p), insulin growth factor binding protein-2 (IGFBP-2)(ps) and fibrinogen-gamma-chain(p), all of which exhibited consistent pattern of regulation in > three independent cohorts. They are involved in AD pathogenesis via amyloid-beta (A beta), neurofibrillary tangles, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Meta-analysis indicated that ApoA-1(ps) was significantly down-regulated in AD (SMD=-1.52, 95% CI: -1.89, -1.16, p < 0.00001), with low inter-study heterogeneity (I-2 = 0%, p = 0.59). alpha 2M(ps) was significantly upregulated in AD (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.05, 1.62, p = 0.04), with moderate inter-study heterogeneity (I-2 = 41%, p = 0.19). Both CB are involved in A beta formation. These findings provide important insights into blood-based AD biomarkers discovery via proteomics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据