Lana M Chahine1, Matthew B Stern1. 1. Department of Neurology Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Objective measures of Parkinson's disease (PD) are needed for purposes of diagnosis and prognostication, as well as identification of those at risk of PD. In this qualitative review, we provide an overview of the current state of the field of PD biomarker development, delineate challenges, and discuss how the field is evolving. METHODS: A search of PubMed was conducted for articles pertaining to objective biomarkers for PD. Articles were selected based on relevance and methodology; where available, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and comprehensive qualitative review articles were preferentially referenced. RESULTS: There are several potential sources of objective PD biomarkers including biofluids, peripheral tissue, imaging, genetics, and technology based objective motor testing. Approaches to biomarker identification include the candidate biomarker approach and unbiased discovery methods, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Several emerging techniques hold promise in each of these areas. Advances in technology and bioinformatics, and the increasing availability of biobanks, are expected to facilitate future PD biomarker development. CONCLUSIONS: The field of objective biomarkers for PD has made great progress but much remains to be done in translating putative biomarkers into tools useful in the clinic and for research. Multimodal biomarker platforms have the potential to capitalize on the utility and strengths of individual biomarkers. Rigorous methodology and standards for replication of findings will be key to meaningful progress in the field.
BACKGROUND: Objective measures of Parkinson's disease (PD) are needed for purposes of diagnosis and prognostication, as well as identification of those at risk of PD. In this qualitative review, we provide an overview of the current state of the field of PD biomarker development, delineate challenges, and discuss how the field is evolving. METHODS: A search of PubMed was conducted for articles pertaining to objective biomarkers for PD. Articles were selected based on relevance and methodology; where available, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and comprehensive qualitative review articles were preferentially referenced. RESULTS: There are several potential sources of objective PD biomarkers including biofluids, peripheral tissue, imaging, genetics, and technology based objective motor testing. Approaches to biomarker identification include the candidate biomarker approach and unbiased discovery methods, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Several emerging techniques hold promise in each of these areas. Advances in technology and bioinformatics, and the increasing availability of biobanks, are expected to facilitate future PD biomarker development. CONCLUSIONS: The field of objective biomarkers for PD has made great progress but much remains to be done in translating putative biomarkers into tools useful in the clinic and for research. Multimodal biomarker platforms have the potential to capitalize on the utility and strengths of individual biomarkers. Rigorous methodology and standards for replication of findings will be key to meaningful progress in the field.
Authors: Daniela Berg; Ronald B Postuma; Charles H Adler; Bastiaan R Bloem; Piu Chan; Bruno Dubois; Thomas Gasser; Christopher G Goetz; Glenda Halliday; Lawrence Joseph; Anthony E Lang; Inga Liepelt-Scarfone; Irene Litvan; Kenneth Marek; José Obeso; Wolfgang Oertel; C Warren Olanow; Werner Poewe; Matthew Stern; Günther Deuschl Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Danna Jennings; Andrew Siderowf; Matthew Stern; John Seibyl; Shirley Eberly; David Oakes; Kenneth Marek Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Ludovica Griffanti; Michal Rolinski; Konrad Szewczyk-Krolikowski; Ricarda A Menke; Nicola Filippini; Giovanna Zamboni; Mark Jenkinson; Michele T M Hu; Clare E Mackay Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556