4.7 Article

Serum neurofilament light is increased in multiple system atrophy of cerebellar type and in repeat-expansion spinocerebellar ataxias: a pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 265, 期 7, 页码 1618-1624

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-018-8893-9

关键词

Neurofilament light chain (NfL); Multiple system atrophy of cerebellar type (MSA-C); Spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA); Sporadic adult-onset ataxia (SAOA); Serum; Biomarker

资金

  1. University of Tubingen
  2. Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research (HIH)
  3. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE)
  4. Else Kroner-Fresenius-Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blood biomarkers in degenerative ataxias are still largely missing. Here, we aimed to provide piloting proof-of-concept that serum Neurofilament light (NfL) could offer a promising peripheral blood biomarker in degenerative ataxias. Specifically, as a marker of neuronal damage, NfL might (1) help to differentiate multiple system atrophy of cerebellar type (MSA-C) from sporadic adult-onset ataxia (SAOA), and (2) show increases in repeat-expansion spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs) which might be amenable to treatment in the future. To explore these two hypotheses, we measured serum NfL levels by single-molecule array (Simoa) technique in 115 subjects, comprising patients with MSA-C (n = 25), SAOA (n = 25), the most frequent repeat-expansion SCAs (SCA 1, 2, 3 and 6) (n = 20), and age-matched controls (n = 45). Compared to controls, NfL was significantly increased in MSA-C, with levels significantly higher than in SAOA (AUC = 0.74 (0.59-0.89), mean and 95% confidence interval, p = .004). NfL was also significantly increased in SCA patients as compared to controls (AUC = 0.91 (0.81-1.00), p < .001), including NfL increases in SCA1 and SCA3. These findings provide first proof-of-concept that NfL might provide a promising peripheral biomarker in degenerative ataxias, e.g. supporting the differentiation of MSA-C from SAOA, and indicating neuronal damage in repeat-expansion SCAs.

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