PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A major goal of current clinical research in neurodegenerative diseases is to improve early detection of disease and presymptomatic detection of neuronal dysfunction. We also need better tools to assess disease progression in this group of disorders. Currently, many potential disease-modifying therapies are being developed and evaluated at the preclinical stage, and will lead to clinical trials in the near future for which biomarkers are urgently needed. This review summarizes the field of biomarker research in the major neurodegenerative diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Many different approaches are being undertaken to identify biomarkers and include imaging, neurophysiological and cognitive testing in addition to newer technologies such as biochemical, proteomic, metabanomic and gene array profiling of tissue and biofluids from patients. Key recent findings in each of these areas are discussed. SUMMARY: The ideal biomarker needs to be easy to quantify and measure, reproducible, not subject to wide variation in the general population and unaffected by co-morbid factors. For evaluation of therapies the biomarker needs to change linearly with disease progression and closely correlate with established clinico-pathological parameters of the disease. It is unlikely that any one biomarker will fulfil all these characteristics, and it is likely that more than one biomarker will be needed for early diagnosis and similarly for evaluation of disease progression for therapeutic trials. For example, the combination of more detailed clinical assessments encompassing specific cognitive and neurophysiological testing, in addition to imaging, biochemical and genomic profiling, is likely to be needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A major goal of current clinical research in neurodegenerative diseases is to improve early detection of disease and presymptomatic detection of neuronal dysfunction. We also need better tools to assess disease progression in this group of disorders. Currently, many potential disease-modifying therapies are being developed and evaluated at the preclinical stage, and will lead to clinical trials in the near future for which biomarkers are urgently needed. This review summarizes the field of biomarker research in the major neurodegenerative diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Many different approaches are being undertaken to identify biomarkers and include imaging, neurophysiological and cognitive testing in addition to newer technologies such as biochemical, proteomic, metabanomic and gene array profiling of tissue and biofluids from patients. Key recent findings in each of these areas are discussed. SUMMARY: The ideal biomarker needs to be easy to quantify and measure, reproducible, not subject to wide variation in the general population and unaffected by co-morbid factors. For evaluation of therapies the biomarker needs to change linearly with disease progression and closely correlate with established clinico-pathological parameters of the disease. It is unlikely that any one biomarker will fulfil all these characteristics, and it is likely that more than one biomarker will be needed for early diagnosis and similarly for evaluation of disease progression for therapeutic trials. For example, the combination of more detailed clinical assessments encompassing specific cognitive and neurophysiological testing, in addition to imaging, biochemical and genomic profiling, is likely to be needed.
Authors: Heike Runne; Alexandre Kuhn; Edward J Wild; Wirahpati Pratyaksha; Mark Kristiansen; Jeremy D Isaacs; Etienne Régulier; Mauro Delorenzi; Sarah J Tabrizi; Ruth Luthi-Carter Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lucas Sedeño; Olivier Piguet; Sofía Abrevaya; Horacio Desmaras; Indira García-Cordero; Sandra Baez; Laura Alethia de la Fuente; Pablo Reyes; Sicong Tu; Sebastian Moguilner; Nicolas Lori; Ramon Landin-Romero; Diana Matallana; Andrea Slachevsky; Teresa Torralva; Dante Chialvo; Fiona Kumfor; Adolfo M García; Facundo Manes; John R Hodges; Agustin Ibanez Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Jinho Kim; Daniel J Amante; Jennifer P Moody; Christina K Edgerly; Olivia L Bordiuk; Karen Smith; Samantha A Matson; Wayne R Matson; Clemens R Scherzer; H Diana Rosas; Steven M Hersch; Robert J Ferrante Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2010-05-09
Authors: Christoph Zenzmaier; Josef Marksteiner; Andreas Kiefer; Peter Berger; Christian Humpel Journal: J Neurochem Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 5.372
Authors: Karl Bacos; Maria Björkqvist; Asa Petersén; Lena Luts; Marion L C Maat-Schieman; Raymund A C Roos; Frank Sundler; Patrik Brundin; Hindrik Mulder; Nils Wierup Journal: Histochem Cell Biol Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 4.304
Authors: S Klöppel; S M Henley; N Z Hobbs; R C Wolf; J Kassubek; S J Tabrizi; R S J Frackowiak Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 3.590