Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 51: 1057-1060, 2005. First published April 21, 2005; 10.1373/clinchem.2005.048629
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplements
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2005.048629v1
51/6/1057    most recent
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schoonenboom, N. S.M.
Right arrow Articles by Blankenstein, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schoonenboom, N. S.M.
Right arrow Articles by Blankenstein, M. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow General Clinical Chemistry
Right arrow Proteomics and Protein Markers
(Clinical Chemistry. 2005;51:1057-1060.)
© 2005 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.


Technical Briefs

Differences and Similarities between Two Frequently Used Assays for Amyloid ß 42 in Cerebrospinal Fluid

Niki S.M. Schoonenboom1,2,1,a, Cees Mulder2,1, Hugo Vanderstichele3, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg1, Gerard J. Van Kamp2, Philip Scheltens1, Pankaj D. Mehta4 and Marinus A. Blankenstein2

1 Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, and2 Department of Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;3 Innogenetics NV, Ghent, Belgium;4 Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities, Department of Developmental Neurobiology, Division of Immunology, Staten Island, NY;

aaddress correspondence to this author at: Departments of Neurology and Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; fax 31-(0)204440715, e-mail niki.schoonenboom{at}vumc.nl

Amyloid ß 42 (Aß 42) concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are used to identify Alzheimer disease (AD) (1), but reported concentrations differ among studies, as does diagnostic accuracy (2). These differences may relate to the patient and control groups studied (3), processing and storage methods (4), intra- and interassay variation of the assays, or to the reagent antibodies used. A recent metaanalysis (2) stressed the importance of standardizing assays for Aß–42 in CSF. In most studies, CSF Aß 42 was reported to be decreased, but in 2 studies, CSF Aß 42 was not significantly changed in AD (2), and in 1 study(5) even increased in the early stages of disease. These dissimilarities might reflect the specificities of the antibodies incorporated in the assays.

The first aim of our study was to compare Aß 42 concentrations measured by 2 different assays in the same CSF samples. The first assay, widely used in Europe (6), uses 2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and detects the full-length Aß 42 peptide, Aß (1–42) (7). The second assay [Aß (N–42)], used mainly in the United States (8), detects both full-length Aß 42 and Aß peptides truncated at the NH2 terminus (9).

The second aim of our study was to compare diagnostic accuracies of the assays for patients with AD compared with controls without dementia and patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD).

Finally, we investigated the relationship between CSF Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) concentrations and albumin ratio, age, disease duration, and disease severity.

Between October 2000 and December 2002, we recruited 39 AD patients, 24 FTLD patients, and 30 non-dementia controls at the Alzheimer Center of the VU University Medical Center (VUMC). All patients underwent a standardized investigative battery (3). A diagnosis of "probable" AD was made according to the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria (10); the clinical picture of FTLD (including frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia, and progressive aphasia) was based on international clinical diagnostic criteria (11). Disease duration was defined as the time in years between the first symptoms by history and the lumbar puncture.

The control group (n = 30) consisted of 20 persons with subjective memory complaints, who had undergone the same battery of examinations as the patients; 5 spouses of patients; 3 individuals with a positive family history for AD, all without memory complaints; 1 patient with a suspicion of intracranial hypertension; and 1 patient with a possible neuritis vestibularis. No controls developed dementia within 1 year. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (12) was used as a measure of global cognitive impairment. The study was approved by the ethics review board of the VUMC. All patients and controls gave written informed consent.

CSF was collected and stored as described previously (4). The albumin ratio (serum albumin/CSF albumin) was used as a measurement of the intactness of the blood–brain barrier. Except for 1 FTLD patient and 2 controls, the blood–brain barriers of the patients were intact (Table 1 ).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Demographic data and CSF analyses for each diagnostic category.1

The INNOTESTTM ß-AMYLOID(1–42) (Innogenetics) uses mAb 21F12, which binds the COOH terminus of the Aß 42 peptide (amino acids 36–42), as capture antibody and biotinylated mAb 3D6, which binds the NH2 terminus (amino acids 1–6), as detection antibody (6). Aß (1–42) peptides from Bachem were used for calibration. This test was performed at the Department of Clinical Chemistry, VUMC, Amsterdam.

The sandwich ELISA for Aß (N–42) uses the commercially available mAb 6E10 (Signet Labs), specific to an epitope covering N-terminal amino acid residues 1–17 of Aß 42, as capture antibody and the polyclonal antibody R165 as detector antibody. R165 was made by immunizing rabbits with conjugated Aß 33–42 peptides (Ana Spec). Aß (1–42) from Bachem was used for calibration, although production procedures for the calibrators were slightly different between the 2 laboratories. This test was performed at the New York site according to an in-house protocol.

For statistical analysis, we used SPSS (Ver. 11.0). Passing and Bablok regression analyses (13) were performed with Medcalc, Ver. 4.30 (Medcalc Software), and we also prepared a Bland–Altman plot (14). For group differences, we applied the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by the Mann–Whitney U-test applying the Bonferroni correction. The {chi}2 test with continuity correction was used to test group differences within genders.

The sensitivities and specificities for CSF Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) were calculated. Cut points corresponded to a sensitivity ≥85% (15), but if a higher sensitivity was obtained for a reasonable specificity, it was used. ROC curves were constructed, and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were calculated and compared (16). Spearman correlations were calculated. A test was considered significant at P <0.05. All reported tests are 2-tailed unless stated otherwise.

The CSF Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) concentrations were not statistically significantly different (Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2 in the Data Supplement that accompanies the online version of this Technical Brief at http://www.clinchem.org/content/vol51/issue6/). Concentrations of both CSF Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) were significantly lower in AD patients than in patients with FTLD and in controls (Table 1Up ). CSF Aß (1–42) concentrations differed significantly between FTLD patients and controls, whereas CSF Aß (N–42) concentrations did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (Table 1Up ). The ratio of Aß (1–42) to Aß (N–42) differed significantly only between the AD and FTLD patient groups.

ROC curves for CSF Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) are shown in Fig. 1 . In AD patients vs controls, the sensitivity and specificity for CSF Aß (1–42) were 90% and 93%, respectively, at 473 ng/L and for CSF Aß (N–42), they were 90% and 87%, respectively, at 383 ng/L. The AUCs were not different (Fig. 1A ) for Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) [0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.86–0.99) and 0.92 (0.83–0.97), respectively; P = 0.47].



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. ROC curves comparing Aß (1–42) (thick line) with Aß (N–42) (thin line) in AD vs controls (A), AD vs FTLD (B), and FTLD vs controls (C).

When we compared the AD and FTLD patient groups, we obtained a specificity of 67% for CSF Aß (1–42) at a sensitivity of 85% (448 ng/L). For CSF Aß (N–42), the specificity was 75% at a sensitivity of 87% (373 ng/L). The AUCs for CSF Aß (N–42) and CSF Aß (1–42) tended to be different [Fig. 1BUp ; 0.87 (76–0.97) and 0.77 (0.64–0.90); P = 0.045].

The AUCs for CSF Aß (1–42) and CSF Aß (N–42) in distinguishing FTLD patients from controls were significantly different [Fig. 1CUp ; 0.69 (0.55–0.81) and 0.54 (0.39–0.67); P = 0.007], but the discriminatory value was small for Aß (1–42) and negligible for Aß (N–42), with the confidence interval for the AUC including 0.5.

We found no significant correlation of either CSF Aß (1–42) or Aß (N–42) with albumin ratio, MMSE score, age, or disease duration (AD and FTLD) in either group.

The absolute concentrations of CSF Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) were comparable. However, in earlier studies, concentrations of CSF Aß (N–42) ranged from 36 to 623 ng/L in AD patients and from 111 to 629 ng/L in controls (8)(17)(18). The reason for the low CSF Aß (N–42) concentrations measured in these studies could be a difference in the affinity of the Aß (N–42) polyclonal antiserum samples or the purity and solubility of the peptides used as calibrators (8). The sensitivity of an ELISA depends largely on the binding characteristics of the antigen, which may vary with temperature and buffer solutions, or among different reagent lots (6). In addition, the affinity of the antibodies used in the assays might vary for the various Aß 42 peptides involved in the pathogenesis of AD, including oligomers of the Aß 42 peptide. A future study exchanging calibrators and antibodies among various ELISAs is necessary for harmonization.

ROC curve analysis revealed no difference in the ability of the 2 assays to differentiate AD patients from controls. In addition to the C-terminal heterogeneity, various N-terminally truncated peptides are found in the Aß pools of AD brains (19)(20). These peptides are considered to play a role in the increased Aß 42 production in developing AD. We speculate that Aß (1–42) and Aß (N–42) concentrations go hand in hand at a certain stage of disease, in mild to moderate AD as well as in controls. Because N-terminally truncated Aß 42 peptides can be demonstrated early in the disease process (9), they might be promising markers for the preclinical diagnosis of AD, when used simultaneously with Aß (1–42) (21).

Several authors found decreased Aß (1–42) in CSF from a subset of FTLD patients (3)(22). Very little information is available about the CSF Aß (N–42) concentration in FTLD (17). The reason for a decrease in CSF Aß (1–42) in FTLD is unknown, although there might be a relationship with the presence of an {epsilon}4 allele or with age (23). Interestingly, a few studies have shown the involvement of 3 mutations in the presenilin 1 gene (PSEN1) in familial forms of FTLD (24)(25)(26). These possible "loss of function" PSEN1 mutations might act as inhibitors of the {gamma}-secretase cleavage of amyloid precursor protein (27), leading to a decrease of Aß (1–42) in the brain. Although most FTLD patients included in our study had the sporadic form of FTLD, we cannot exclude the possibility of a mutation in the PSEN1 gene in some of them.


Footnotes

1 these authors equally contributed to the work;


References

  1. Blennow K, Hampel H. CSF markers for incipient Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol 2003;2:605-613.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Sunderland T, Linker G, Mirza N, Putnam KT, Friedman DL, Kimmel LH, et al. Decreased ß-amyloid1–42 and increased tau levels in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Alzheimer disease. JAMA 2003;289:2094-2103.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Schoonenboom NS, Pijnenburg YA, Mulder C, Rosso SM, Van Elk EJ, Van Kamp GJ, et al. Amyloid ß(1–42) and phosphorylated tau in CSF as markers for early-onset Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2004;62:1580-1584.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Schoonenboom NS, Mulder C, Vanderstichele H, Van Elk EJ, Kok A, Van Kamp GJ, et al. Effects of processing and storage conditions on CSF amyloid ß(1–42) and tau concentrations: implications for use in clinical practice. Clin Chem 2005;51:189-195.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Jensen M, Schröder J, Blomberg M, Engvall B, Pantel J, Ida N, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid Aß42 is increased early in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease and declines with disease progression. Ann Neurol 1999;45:504-511.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Vanderstichele H, Van Kerschaver E, Hesse C, Davidsson P, Buyse MA, Andreasen N, et al. Standardization of measurement of ß-amyloid (1–42) in cerebrospinal fluid and plasma. Amyloid 2000;7:245-258.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Olsson A, Vanderstichele H, Andreasen N, De Meyer G, Wallin A, Holmberg B, et al. Simultaneous measurement of ß-amyloid(1–42), total tau, and phosphorylated tau (Thr181) in cerebrospinal fluid by the xMAP technology. Clin Chem 2005;51:336-345.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Mehta PD, Pirttila T, Mehta SP, Sersen EA, Aisen PS, Wisniewski HM. Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid levels of amyloid ß proteins 1–40 and 1–42 in Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2000;57:100-105.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Sergeant N, Bombois S, Ghestem A, Drobecq H, Kostanjevecki V, Missiaen C, et al. Truncated ß-amyloid peptide species in pre-clinical Alzheimer’s disease as new targets for the vaccination approach. J Neurochem 2003;85:1581-1591.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984;34:939-944.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Neary D, Snowden JS, Gustafson L, Passant U, Stuss D, Black S, et al. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology 1998;51:1546-1554.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-198.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709-720.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Consensus report of the working group on: "Molecular and biochemical markers of Alzheimer’s Disease". The Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute of the Alzheimer’s Association and the National Institute on Aging Working Group. Neurobiol Aging 1998;19:109-116.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839-843.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Tapiola T, Pirttila T, Mehta PD, Alafuzoff I, Lehtovirta M, Soininen H. Relationship between Apo E genotype and CSF ß-amyloid (1–42) and tau in patients with probable and definite Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2000;21:735-740.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Mehta PD, Pirttila T, Patrick BA, Barshatzky M, Mehta SP. Amyloid ß protein 1–40 and 1–42 levels in matched cerebrospinal fluid and plasma from patients with Alzheimer disease. Neurosci Lett 2001;304:102-106.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Li R, Lindholm K, Yang LB, Yue X, Citron M, Yan R, et al. Amyloid ß peptide load is correlated with increased ß-secretase activity in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:3632-3637.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Lee EB, Skovronsky DM, Abtahian F, Doms RW, Lee VMY. Secretion and intracellular generation of truncated Aß in ß-site amyloid-ß precursor protein-cleaving enzyme expressing human neurons. J Biol Chem 2003;278:4458-4466.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Sergeant N, Kostanjevecki V, Casas K, Ghestem A, Grognet P, Drobecq H, et al. Amino-truncated Aß2 species as early diagnostic and etiological biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease [Abstract]. Neurobiol Aging 2004;25(Suppl 2):3.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Riemenschneider M, Wagenpfeil S, Diehl J, Lautenschlager N, Theml T, Heldmann B, et al. Tau and Aß 42 protein in CSF of patients with frontotemporal degeneration. Neurology 2002;58:1622-1628.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Mann DM, McDonagh AM, Pickering-Brown SM, Kowa H, Iwatsubo T. Amyloid ß protein deposition in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration: relationship to age and apolipoprotein E genotype. Neurosci Lett 2001;304:161-164.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Dermaut B, Kumar-Singh S, Engelborghs S, Theuns J, Rademakers R, Saerens J, et al. A novel presenilin 1 mutation associated with Pick’s disease but not ß-amyloid plaques. Ann Neurol 2004;55:617-626.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Tang-Wai D, Lewis P, Boeve B, Hutton M, Golde T, Baker M, et al. Familial frontotemporal dementia associated with a novel presenilin-1 mutation. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2002;14:13-21.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Raux G, Gantier R, Thomas-Anterion C, Boulliat J, Verpillat P, Hannequin D, et al. Dementia with prominent frontotemporal features associated with L113P presenilin 1 mutation. Neurology 2000;55:1577-1578.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Amtul Z, Lewis PA, Piper S, Crook R, Baker M, Findlay K, et al. A presenilin 1 mutation associated with familial frontotemporal dementia inhibits gamma-secretase cleavage of APP and notch. Neurobiol Dis 2002;9:269-273.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]




This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplements
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2005.048629v1
51/6/1057    most recent
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schoonenboom, N. S.M.
Right arrow Articles by Blankenstein, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schoonenboom, N. S.M.
Right arrow Articles by Blankenstein, M. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow General Clinical Chemistry
Right arrow Proteomics and Protein Markers


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS