Andreas Leinenbach1, Josef Pannee2, Thomas Dülffer1, Andreas Huber1, Tobias Bittner1, Ulf Andreasson2, Johan Gobom2, Henrik Zetterberg3, Uwe Kobold1, Erik Portelius2, Kaj Blennow4. 1. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Penzberg, Germany; 2. Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Salgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden; 3. Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Salgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden; UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Salgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden; kaj.blennow@neuro.gu.se.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β (Aβ42) is a well-established biomarker for Alzheimer disease. Several immunoassays for Aβ42 exist but differ in absolute concentrations and may suffer from matrix interference, thereby hampering interlaboratory comparisons and the use of general cutoff levels. Together with the IFCC Working Group on CSF Proteins, we developed a candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) for Aβ42. METHODS: The antibody-independent candidate RMP was based on solid-phase extraction and isotope-dilution LC-MS/MS. The candidate RMP used 2 differently stable isotope-labeled Aβ42 peptides for calibration in human CSF, an important aspect since there was no analyte-free matrix available. Because no CSF certified reference material (CRM) exists, we used a nonlabeled Aβ42 standard, the concentration of which was determined by amino acid analysis. We performed measurements on a high-resolution quadrupole-Orbitrap hybrid instrument. The results were compared with a method run in a second laboratory with triple quadrupole instrumentation. RESULTS: The candidate RMP allowed quantification of CSF Aβ42 from 150 to 4000 pg/mL. Validation of the method showed a recovery of 100% (15%), intraassay and interassay imprecision of 5.0% and 6.4%, respectively, and an expanded uncertainty of 15.7%. No analytical interferences or carryover were detected. CONCLUSIONS: This method will help set the value of CSF Aβ42 in a CRM, which could be used to harmonize Aβ42 assays and facilitate the introduction of general cutoff concentrations for CSF Aβ42 in clinical trials and practice.
BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β (Aβ42) is a well-established biomarker for Alzheimer disease. Several immunoassays for Aβ42 exist but differ in absolute concentrations and may suffer from matrix interference, thereby hampering interlaboratory comparisons and the use of general cutoff levels. Together with the IFCC Working Group on CSF Proteins, we developed a candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) for Aβ42. METHODS: The antibody-independent candidate RMP was based on solid-phase extraction and isotope-dilution LC-MS/MS. The candidate RMP used 2 differently stable isotope-labeled Aβ42 peptides for calibration in human CSF, an important aspect since there was no analyte-free matrix available. Because no CSF certified reference material (CRM) exists, we used a nonlabeled Aβ42 standard, the concentration of which was determined by amino acid analysis. We performed measurements on a high-resolution quadrupole-Orbitrap hybrid instrument. The results were compared with a method run in a second laboratory with triple quadrupole instrumentation. RESULTS: The candidate RMP allowed quantification of CSF Aβ42 from 150 to 4000 pg/mL. Validation of the method showed a recovery of 100% (15%), intraassay and interassay imprecision of 5.0% and 6.4%, respectively, and an expanded uncertainty of 15.7%. No analytical interferences or carryover were detected. CONCLUSIONS: This method will help set the value of CSF Aβ42 in a CRM, which could be used to harmonize Aβ42 assays and facilitate the introduction of general cutoff concentrations for CSF Aβ42 in clinical trials and practice.
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: Leslie M Shaw; Magdalena Korecka; Michal Figurski; Jon Toledo; David Irwin; Ju Hee Kang; John Q Trojanowski Journal: J Appl Lab Med Date: 2020-01-01
Authors: Gunnar Brinkmalm; Wei Hong; Zemin Wang; Wen Liu; Tiernan T O'Malley; Xin Sun; Matthew P Frosch; Dennis J Selkoe; Erik Portelius; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Dominic M Walsh Journal: Brain Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Piotr Lewczuk; Peter Riederer; Sid E O'Bryant; Marcel M Verbeek; Bruno Dubois; Pieter Jelle Visser; Kurt A Jellinger; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Alfredo Ramirez; Lucilla Parnetti; Clifford R Jack; Charlotte E Teunissen; Harald Hampel; Alberto Lleó; Frank Jessen; Lidia Glodzik; Mony J de Leon; Anne M Fagan; José Luis Molinuevo; Willemijn J Jansen; Bengt Winblad; Leslie M Shaw; Ulf Andreasson; Markus Otto; Brit Mollenhauer; Jens Wiltfang; Martin R Turner; Inga Zerr; Ron Handels; Alexander G Thompson; Gunilla Johansson; Natalia Ermann; John Q Trojanowski; Ilker Karaca; Holger Wagner; Patrick Oeckl; Linda van Waalwijk van Doorn; Maria Bjerke; Dimitrios Kapogiannis; H Bea Kuiperij; Lucia Farotti; Yi Li; Brian A Gordon; Stéphane Epelbaum; Stephanie J B Vos; Catharina J M Klijn; William E Van Nostrand; Carolina Minguillon; Matthias Schmitz; Carla Gallo; Andrea Lopez Mato; Florence Thibaut; Simone Lista; Daniel Alcolea; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Johannes Kornhuber Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 4.132