4.6 Article

Antibody biomarker for de novo Parkinson disease: attempted validation

期刊

NPJ PARKINSONS DISEASE
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41531-018-0064-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative - Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
  2. Abbvie
  3. Allergan
  4. Avid
  5. Biogen
  6. BioLegend
  7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  8. GE Healthcare
  9. Genentech
  10. GlaxoSmithKline
  11. Lilly
  12. Lundbeck
  13. Merck
  14. MesoScaleDiscovery
  15. Pfizer
  16. Piramal
  17. Roche
  18. Sanofi Genzyme
  19. Servier
  20. Takeda
  21. Teva
  22. UCB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with motor symptoms that result from degeneration of midbrain dopaminergic neurons. Biomarker research seeks to identify the disease during the pre-symptomatic phase, which is a time when therapeutic intervention will be most helpful. Previously, we screened a combinatorial peptoid library to search for antibodies that are present at much higher levels in the serum of PD patients than in control subjects. One such compound, called the PD2 peptoid, was 84% accurate for the identification of de novo PD when employed as the capture agent in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. This peptoid recognized an IgG3 antibody, and IgG3 levels were also found to be significantly higher in PD vs. control serum. In that study we used samples from the NINDS Parkinson's Disease Biomarker Program. The current study sought to validate that finding using serum samples from de novo and control subjects in the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative study. We found no difference in levels of antibodies captured by the PD2 peptoid in the de novo PD vs. control subjects, and no difference in IgG3 serum levels in the two groups. The failure to replicate our previous study appears to be due to the lack of difference in serum IgG3 levels between the PD and control subjects in the current study.

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

4.6
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