4.3 Article

Follow-up investigations in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURAL TRANSMISSION
卷 112, 期 7, 页码 933-948

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00702-004-0235-7

关键词

dementia with Lewy bodies; Alzheimer's disease; cerebrospinal fluid; tau protein; p-tau protein; A beta 42; A beta 40; S-100B protein; follow-up; laboratory marker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measuring proteins in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has gained wide acceptance for the differential diagnosis of dementia. Some groups have already extended these investigations in Alzheimer's disease (AD) by asking how stable these markers are in follow-up analysis, if they depend on the stage of disease and whether they can be used to monitor the progression and biological effects of treatment. We evaluated 21 patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and 19 patients with AD, on two occasions, with regard to levels of tau protein, tau protein phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau), A beta 42, A beta 40 and S-100B protein, using a set of commercially available assays. Tau protein levels were lower in DLB in first and second LP compared to AD and decreased during course of both groups. P-tau levels were increased in AD and DLB and decreased during follow-up. A beta 42 and A beta 40 remained relatively stable during follow-up but we found a slight increase of the median A beta 42 level in DLB, whereas in AD, A beta 42 tends to decrease during follow-up. S-100B protein increased during follow-up in both diseases. The protein dynamics in DLB and AD are relatively similar. S-100B protein may be a useful marker for follow-up in neurodegenerative diseases but has to be analysed in longer follow-up periods. Tau protein may be used to differentiate between DLB and AD. Follow-up CSF analyses are of limited value for the differentiation of AD and DLB. We conclude that more specific markers have to be established for the differentiation and follow-up of these diseases.

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

4.3
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