4.2 Review

Comparative proteomics of cerebrospinal fluid in neuropathologically-confirmed Alzheimer's disease and non-demented elderly subjects

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 155-163

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/016164106X98035

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; biomarkers; cerebrospinal fluid; proteomics

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG-17490, AG-19795, AG-19610] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Diagnostic tests able to reveal Alzheimer's disease (AD) in livin patients before cognitive ability is destroyed are urgently needed. Such tests must distinguish AD from other dementia causes, as well as differentiate subtle changes associated with normal aging from true pathology emergence. A single biomarker offering such diagnostic and prognostic capacities has eluded identification. Therefore, a valuable test for AD is likely to be based on a specific pattern of change in a set of proteins, rather than a single protein. Methods: We examined pooled cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples obtained from neuropathologically-confirmed AD (n = 43) and non-demented control subjects (n = 43) using 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2DE) proteomic methodology to detect differentially expressed proteins. Proteins exhibiting expression level differences between the pools were recovered and identified using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry. Results: Five differentially-expressed proteins with potential roles in amyloid-beta metabolism and vascular and brain physiology [apolipoprotein A-1 (Apo A-1), cathepsin D (CatD), hemopexin (HPX), transthyretin (TTR), and two pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) isoforms] were identified. Apo A-1, CatD and TTR were significantly reduced in the AD pool sample, while HPX and the PEDF isoforms were increased in AD CSF. Discussion: These results suggest that multi-factor proteomic pattern analysis of the CSF may provide a means to diagnose and assess AD.

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

4.2
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