4.8 Article

Diagnosis of human prion disease

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0409651102

关键词

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; detection; endpoint titration; immunoassay; neurodegeneration

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00079, M01 RR000079] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG019724, AG021601, K23 AG021989, P01 AG002132, AG010770, AG02132, AG023501, P01 AG021601, P01 AG010770, AG021989, P50 AG023501, AG019724] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [N01NS02328] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the discovery of the prion protein (PrP), immunodiagnostic procedures were applied to diagnose Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Before development of the conformation-dependent immunoassay (CDI), all immunoassays for the disease-causing PrP isoform (PrPsc) used limited proteolysis to digest the precursor cellular PrP (PrPc). Because the CDI is the only immunoassay that measures both the protease-resistant and protease-sensitive forms of PrPsc, we used the CDI to diagnose human prion disease. The CDI gave a positive signal for PrPsc in all 10-24 brain regions (100%) examined from 28 CJD patients. A subset of 18 brain regions from 8 patients with sporadic CJD (sCJD) was examined by histology, immunohistochemistry (IHC), and the CDI. Three of the 18 regions (17%) were consistently positive by histology and 4 of 18 (22%) by IHC for the 8 sCJD patients. In contrast, the CDI was positive in all 18 regions (100%) for all 8 sCJD patients. In both gray and white matter, approximate to90% of the total PrPsc was protease-sensitive and, thus, would have been degraded by procedures using proteases to eliminate PrPc. Our findings argue that the CDI should be used to establish or rule out the diagnosis of prion disease when a small number of samples is available as is the case with brain biopsy. Moreover, IHC should not be used as the standard against which all other immunodiagnostic techniques are compared because an immunoassay, such as the CDI, is substantially more sensitive.

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

4.8
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