4.3 Article

CD45 isoform alteration in CD4+T cells as a potential diagnostic marker of Alzheimer's disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROIMMUNOLOGY
卷 132, 期 1-2, 页码 164-172

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-5728(02)00309-0

关键词

T lymphocyte; diagnostic marker; apolipoprotein E

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aging represents the greatest risk for development of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and changes in peripheral immune cell phenotypes have been found to be associated with aging. Using flow cytometry, we measured the relative expression levels of CD45 isoforms, a marker of naive versus memory CD4+ T cell status, on isolated CD4+ T lymphocytes from patients with a clinical diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease, normal elderly, cognitively abnormal elderly, and patients with clinically diagnosed other forms of dementia. Data show significantly lower levels of CD45RA, and an increase in the CD45RO/CD45RA ratio, on CD4+ T cells in patients diagnosed with probable Alzheimer's disease (n = 46) and in cognitively abnormal individuals (n = 3 7) compared to age-matched normal participants (n 90). Patients diagnosed with other forms of dementia (n = 19) did not significantly differ from normal individuals. Both CD45RA and the CD45RO/CD45RA ratio had higher positive and negative predictive values and were more sensitive biomarkers of probable AD than the apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele, and had greater predictive ability for probable AD by regression analyses. Additionally, a testing strategy employing apolipoprotein E genotyping and CD45RA or the CD45RO/CD45RA ratio revealed increased sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values, and predictive ability over the apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele. These data show altered peripheral immunity in AD patients, and raise the possibility that a testing strategy using CD45 isoform alteration on CD4+ T cells and apolipoprotein E genotype may be clinically valuable for diagnosing probable AD. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V All rights reserved.

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