4.7 Article

Blood levels of D-amino acid oxidase vs. D-amino acids in reflecting cognitive aging

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13951-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [NSC 99-3114-B-182A-003-, NSC 101-2314-B-182A-073-MY2, MOST 105-2314-B-182A-059-]
  2. Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan [CMRPG8E1041]
  3. China Medical University Hospital, Taiwan [DMR-106-099]
  4. Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial and Research Center of Excellence [MOHW106-TDU-B-212-113004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Feasible peripheral biomarker for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is lacking. Dysregulation of N-methyl-Daspartate (NMDA) receptor is implicated in the pathogenesis of AD. D-amino acid oxidase (DAO) and amino acids can regulate the NMDA receptor function. This study aimed to examine whether peripheral DAO and amino acids levels are characteristic of age-related cognitive decline. We enrolled 397 individuals (including amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild AD, moderate to severe AD, and healthy elderly). DAO levels in the serum were measured using ELISA. Amino acids levels in serum were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. Severity of the cognitive deficits in subjects was assessed using Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR). The DAO levels increased with the severity of the cognitive deficits. DAO levels were significantly associated with D-glutamate and D-serine levels. The Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis of DAO levels for AD patients vs. healthy controls determined the optimal cutoff value, 30.10, with high sensitivity (0.842) and specificity (0.889) (area under curve = 0.928). This is the first study indicating that the peripheral DAO levels may increase with age-related cognitive decline. The finding supports the hypofunction of NMDA receptor hypothesis in AD. Whether DAO could serve as a potential surrogate biomarker needs further studies.

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