4.5 Article

Performance Characteristics of Plasma Amyloid-beta 40 and 42 Assays

Journal

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 277-285

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2009-0948

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; amyloid; assay reliability; biomarker; quality control

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [AG24215, CA49449, CA87969]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA049449, U01CA049449, P01CA087969] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG024215] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Identifying biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk will be critical to effective AD prevention. Levels of circulating amyloid-beta (A beta) 40 and 42 may be candidate biomarkers. However, properties of plasma A beta assays must be established. Using five different protocols, blinded samples were used to assess: intra-assay reproducibility; impact of EDTA vs. heparin anticoagulant tubes; and effect of time-to-blood processing. In addition, percent recovery of known A beta concentrations in spiked samples was assessed. Median intra-assay coefficients of variation for the assay protocols ranged from 6-24% for A beta(40), and 8-14% for A beta(42). There were no systematic differences in reproducibility by collection method. Plasma concentrations of A beta (particularly A beta(42)) appeared stable in whole blood kept in ice packs and processed as long as 24 hours after collection. Recovery of expected concentrations was modest, ranging from-24% to 44% recovery of A beta(40), and 17% to 61% of A beta(42). In conclusion, across five protocols, plasma A beta(40) and A beta(42) levels were measured with generally low error, and measurements appeared similar in blood collected in EDTA versus heparin. While these preliminary findings suggest that measuring plasma A beta(40) and A beta(42) may be feasible in varied research settings, additional work in this area is necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available