BACKGROUND: The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid beta 1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau are used increasingly for Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and patient management. However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements among and within laboratories. METHODS: Data from the first nine rounds of the Alzheimer's Association quality control program was used to define the extent and sources of analytical variability. In each round, three CSF samples prepared at the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory (Mölndal, Sweden) were analyzed by single-analyte enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a multiplexing xMAP assay, or an immunoassay with electrochemoluminescence detection. RESULTS: A total of 84 laboratories participated. Coefficients of variation (CVs) between laboratories were around 20% to 30%; within-run CVs, less than 5% to 10%; and longitudinal within-laboratory CVs, 5% to 19%. Interestingly, longitudinal within-laboratory CV differed between biomarkers at individual laboratories, suggesting that a component of it was assay dependent. Variability between kit lots and between laboratories both had a major influence on amyloid beta 1-42 measurements, but for total tau and phosphorylated tau, between-kit lot effects were much less than between-laboratory effects. Despite the measurement variability, the between-laboratory consistency in classification of samples (using prehoc-derived cutoffs for AD) was high (>90% in 15 of 18 samples for ELISA and in 12 of 18 samples for xMAP). CONCLUSIONS: The overall variability remains too high to allow assignment of universal biomarker cutoff values for a specific intended use. Each laboratory must ensure longitudinal stability in its measurements and use internally qualified cutoff levels. Further standardization of laboratory procedures and improvement of kit performance will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers for researchers and clinicians.
BACKGROUND: The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid beta 1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau are used increasingly for Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and patient management. However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements among and within laboratories. METHODS: Data from the first nine rounds of the Alzheimer's Association quality control program was used to define the extent and sources of analytical variability. In each round, three CSF samples prepared at the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory (Mölndal, Sweden) were analyzed by single-analyte enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a multiplexing xMAP assay, or an immunoassay with electrochemoluminescence detection. RESULTS: A total of 84 laboratories participated. Coefficients of variation (CVs) between laboratories were around 20% to 30%; within-run CVs, less than 5% to 10%; and longitudinal within-laboratory CVs, 5% to 19%. Interestingly, longitudinal within-laboratory CV differed between biomarkers at individual laboratories, suggesting that a component of it was assay dependent. Variability between kit lots and between laboratories both had a major influence on amyloid beta 1-42 measurements, but for total tau and phosphorylated tau, between-kit lot effects were much less than between-laboratory effects. Despite the measurement variability, the between-laboratory consistency in classification of samples (using prehoc-derived cutoffs for AD) was high (>90% in 15 of 18 samples for ELISA and in 12 of 18 samples for xMAP). CONCLUSIONS: The overall variability remains too high to allow assignment of universal biomarker cutoff values for a specific intended use. Each laboratory must ensure longitudinal stability in its measurements and use internally qualified cutoff levels. Further standardization of laboratory procedures and improvement of kit performance will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers for researchers and clinicians.
Authors: N A Verwey; W M van der Flier; K Blennow; C Clark; S Sokolow; P P De Deyn; D Galasko; H Hampel; T Hartmann; E Kapaki; L Lannfelt; P D Mehta; L Parnetti; A Petzold; T Pirttila; L Saleh; A Skinningsrud; J C V Swieten; M M Verbeek; J Wiltfang; S Younkin; P Scheltens; M A Blankenstein Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2009-04-02 Impact factor: 2.057
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Hugo Vanderstichele; Malgorzata Knapik-Czajka; Michal Figurski; Els Coart; Kaj Blennow; Holly Soares; Adam J Simon; Piotr Lewczuk; Robert A Dean; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Niklas Mattsson; Ulf Andreasson; Maria C Carrillo; Staffan Persson; Leslie M Shaw; Ingrid Zegers; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow Journal: Biomark Med Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Annika Olsson; Hugo Vanderstichele; Niels Andreasen; Geert De Meyer; Anders Wallin; Björn Holmberg; Lars Rosengren; Eugeen Vanmechelen; Kaj Blennow Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Hugo Vanderstichele; Malgorzata Knapik-Czajka; Christopher M Clark; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Kaj Blennow; Holly Soares; Adam Simon; Piotr Lewczuk; Robert Dean; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Niklas Mattsson; Ingrid Zegers; Ulf Andreasson; Maria Bjerke; Marinus A Blankenstein; Robert Bowser; Maria C Carrillo; Johan Gobom; Theresa Heath; Rand Jenkins; Andreas Jeromin; June Kaplow; Daniel Kidd; Omar F Laterza; Andrew Lockhart; Michael P Lunn; Robert L Martone; Kevin Mills; Josef Pannee; Marianne Ratcliffe; Leslie M Shaw; Adam J Simon; Holly Soares; Charlotte E Teunissen; Marcel M Verbeek; Robert M Umek; Hugo Vanderstichele; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Erik Portelius Journal: Biomark Med Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: E Cavedo; S Lista; Z Khachaturian; P Aisen; P Amouyel; K Herholz; C R Jack; R Sperling; J Cummings; K Blennow; S O'Bryant; G B Frisoni; A Khachaturian; M Kivipelto; W Klunk; K Broich; S Andrieu; M Thiebaut de Schotten; J-F Mangin; A A Lammertsma; K Johnson; S Teipel; A Drzezga; A Bokde; O Colliot; H Bakardjian; H Zetterberg; B Dubois; B Vellas; L S Schneider; H Hampel Journal: J Prev Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014-12
Authors: Suzanne E Schindler; Courtney L Sutphen; Charlotte Teunissen; Lena M McCue; John C Morris; David M Holtzman; Sandra D Mulder; Philip Scheltens; Chengjie Xiong; Anne M Fagan Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: William T Hu; Kelly Watts; Murray Grossman; Jonathan Glass; James J Lah; Chadwick Hales; Matthew Shelnutt; Vivianna Van Deerlin; John Q Trojanowski; Allan I Levey Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Niklas Mattsson; Charlotte E Teunissen; Frederik Barkhof; Yolande Pijnenburg; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Alberto Lleó; Raúl Núñez-Llaves; Daniel Alcolea; Cristina Chiva; Daniel Balateu-Paños; Martí Colom-Cadena; Gemma Gomez-Giro; Laia Muñoz; Marta Querol-Vilaseca; Jordi Pegueroles; Lorena Rami; Albert Lladó; José L Molinuevo; Mikel Tainta; Jordi Clarimón; Tara Spires-Jones; Rafael Blesa; Juan Fortea; Pablo Martínez-Lage; Raquel Sánchez-Valle; Eduard Sabidó; Àlex Bayés; Olivia Belbin Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Ross W Paterson; Jamie Toombs; Catherine F Slattery; Jonathan M Schott; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.074