Christopher Barbour1,2, Peter Kosa1, Mika Komori1, Makoto Tanigawa1, Ruturaj Masvekar1, Tianxia Wu3, Kory Johnson4, Panagiotis Douvaras5, Valentina Fossati5, Ronald Herbst6, Yue Wang6, Keith Tan7, Mark Greenwood2, Bibiana Bielekova1. 1. Neuroimmunological Diseases Unit, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 3. Clinical Trials Unit, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 4. Bioinformatics Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 5. New York Stem Cell Foundation Research Institute, New York, NY. 6. Department of Oncology Research, MedImmune, Gaithersburg, MD. 7. Translational Medicine, Neuroscience, Innovative Medicines, and Early Development, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Biomarkers aid diagnosis, allow inexpensive screening of therapies, and guide selection of patient-specific therapeutic regimens in most internal medicine disciplines. In contrast, neurology lacks validated measurements of the physiological status, or dysfunction(s) of cells of the central nervous system (CNS). Accordingly, patients with chronic neurological diseases are often treated with a single disease-modifying therapy without understanding patient-specific drivers of disability. Therefore, using multiple sclerosis (MS) as an example of a complex polygenic neurological disease, we sought to determine whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are intraindividually stable, cell type-, disease- and/or process-specific, and responsive to therapeutic intervention. METHODS: We used statistical learning in a modeling cohort (n = 225) to develop diagnostic classifiers from DNA-aptamer-based measurements of 1,128 CSF proteins. An independent validation cohort (n = 85) assessed the reliability of derived classifiers. The biological interpretation resulted from in vitro modeling of primary or stem cell-derived human CNS cells and cell lines. RESULTS: The classifier that differentiates MS from CNS diseases that mimic MS clinically, pathophysiologically, and on imaging achieved a validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.98, whereas the classifier that differentiates relapsing-remitting from progressive MS achieved a validated AUROC of 0.91. No classifiers could differentiate primary progressive from secondary progressive MS better than random guessing. Treatment-induced changes in biomarkers greatly exceeded intraindividual and technical variabilities of the assay. INTERPRETATION: CNS biological processes reflected by CSF biomarkers are robust, stable, disease specific, or even disease stage specific. This opens opportunities for broad utilization of CSF biomarkers in drug development and precision medicine for CNS disorders. Ann Neurol 2017;82:795-812. Published 2017. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
OBJECTIVE: Biomarkers aid diagnosis, allow inexpensive screening of therapies, and guide selection of patient-specific therapeutic regimens in most internal medicine disciplines. In contrast, neurology lacks validated measurements of the physiological status, or dysfunction(s) of cells of the central nervous system (CNS). Accordingly, patients with chronic neurological diseases are often treated with a single disease-modifying therapy without understanding patient-specific drivers of disability. Therefore, using multiple sclerosis (MS) as an example of a complex polygenic neurological disease, we sought to determine whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are intraindividually stable, cell type-, disease- and/or process-specific, and responsive to therapeutic intervention. METHODS: We used statistical learning in a modeling cohort (n = 225) to develop diagnostic classifiers from DNA-aptamer-based measurements of 1,128 CSF proteins. An independent validation cohort (n = 85) assessed the reliability of derived classifiers. The biological interpretation resulted from in vitro modeling of primary or stem cell-derived human CNS cells and cell lines. RESULTS: The classifier that differentiates MS from CNS diseases that mimic MS clinically, pathophysiologically, and on imaging achieved a validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.98, whereas the classifier that differentiates relapsing-remitting from progressive MS achieved a validated AUROC of 0.91. No classifiers could differentiate primary progressive from secondary progressive MS better than random guessing. Treatment-induced changes in biomarkers greatly exceeded intraindividual and technical variabilities of the assay. INTERPRETATION: CNS biological processes reflected by CSF biomarkers are robust, stable, disease specific, or even disease stage specific. This opens opportunities for broad utilization of CSF biomarkers in drug development and precision medicine for CNS disorders. Ann Neurol 2017;82:795-812. Published 2017. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Paul Morgan; Piet H Van Der Graaf; John Arrowsmith; Doug E Feltner; Kira S Drummond; Craig D Wegner; Steve D A Street Journal: Drug Discov Today Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 7.851
Authors: Mathias Uhlén; Linn Fagerberg; Björn M Hallström; Cecilia Lindskog; Per Oksvold; Adil Mardinoglu; Åsa Sivertsson; Caroline Kampf; Evelina Sjöstedt; Anna Asplund; IngMarie Olsson; Karolina Edlund; Emma Lundberg; Sanjay Navani; Cristina Al-Khalili Szigyarto; Jacob Odeberg; Dijana Djureinovic; Jenny Ottosson Takanen; Sophia Hober; Tove Alm; Per-Henrik Edqvist; Holger Berling; Hanna Tegel; Jan Mulder; Johan Rockberg; Peter Nilsson; Jochen M Schwenk; Marica Hamsten; Kalle von Feilitzen; Mattias Forsberg; Lukas Persson; Fredric Johansson; Martin Zwahlen; Gunnar von Heijne; Jens Nielsen; Fredrik Pontén Journal: Science Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Ye Zhang; Kenian Chen; Steven A Sloan; Mariko L Bennett; Anja R Scholze; Sean O'Keeffe; Hemali P Phatnani; Paolo Guarnieri; Christine Caneda; Nadine Ruderisch; Shuyun Deng; Shane A Liddelow; Chaolin Zhang; Richard Daneman; Tom Maniatis; Ben A Barres; Jian Qian Wu Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Brenda Banwell; Michel Clanet; Jeffrey A Cohen; Massimo Filippi; Kazuo Fujihara; Eva Havrdova; Michael Hutchinson; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Xavier Montalban; Paul O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: John C Rohloff; Amy D Gelinas; Thale C Jarvis; Urs A Ochsner; Daniel J Schneider; Larry Gold; Nebojsa Janjic Journal: Mol Ther Nucleic Acids Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 10.183
Authors: Michael J Hawrylycz; Ed S Lein; Angela L Guillozet-Bongaarts; Elaine H Shen; Lydia Ng; Jeremy A Miller; Louie N van de Lagemaat; Kimberly A Smith; Amanda Ebbert; Zackery L Riley; Chris Abajian; Christian F Beckmann; Amy Bernard; Darren Bertagnolli; Andrew F Boe; Preston M Cartagena; M Mallar Chakravarty; Mike Chapin; Jimmy Chong; Rachel A Dalley; Barry David Daly; Chinh Dang; Suvro Datta; Nick Dee; Tim A Dolbeare; Vance Faber; David Feng; David R Fowler; Jeff Goldy; Benjamin W Gregor; Zeb Haradon; David R Haynor; John G Hohmann; Steve Horvath; Robert E Howard; Andreas Jeromin; Jayson M Jochim; Marty Kinnunen; Christopher Lau; Evan T Lazarz; Changkyu Lee; Tracy A Lemon; Ling Li; Yang Li; John A Morris; Caroline C Overly; Patrick D Parker; Sheana E Parry; Melissa Reding; Joshua J Royall; Jay Schulkin; Pedro Adolfo Sequeira; Clifford R Slaughterbeck; Simon C Smith; Andy J Sodt; Susan M Sunkin; Beryl E Swanson; Marquis P Vawter; Derric Williams; Paul Wohnoutka; H Ronald Zielke; Daniel H Geschwind; Patrick R Hof; Stephen M Smith; Christof Koch; Seth G N Grant; Allan R Jones Journal: Nature Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Stephanie Herman; Payam Emami Khoonsari; Andreas Tolf; Julia Steinmetz; Henrik Zetterberg; Torbjörn Åkerfeldt; Per-Johan Jakobsson; Anders Larsson; Ola Spjuth; Joachim Burman; Kim Kultima Journal: Theranostics Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Luis de Santiago; E M Sánchez Morla; Miguel Ortiz; Elena López; Carlos Amo Usanos; M C Alonso-Rodríguez; R Barea; Carlo Cavaliere-Ballesta; Alfredo Fernández; Luciano Boquete Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ruturaj Masvekar; Jordan Mizrahi; John Park; Peter R Williamson; Bibiana Bielekova Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 4.003