Anastasia Bougea1,2, Leonidas Stefanis3, George P Paraskevas4, Evangelia Emmanouilidou3, Kostas Vekrelis3, Elisabeth Kapaki4. 1. Neurochemistry laboratory, 1st Department of Neurology and Movement Disorders, Medical School, Aeginition Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 72-74 Vasilissis Sofias Avenue, 11528, Athens, Greece. abougea@med.uoa.gr. 2. Neuroscience laboratory, Center for Basic Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece. abougea@med.uoa.gr. 3. Neuroscience laboratory, Center for Basic Research, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece. 4. Neurochemistry laboratory, 1st Department of Neurology and Movement Disorders, Medical School, Aeginition Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 72-74 Vasilissis Sofias Avenue, 11528, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To date, there are no definitive biomarkers for diagnose Parkinson's disease (PD). The detection of α-synuclein (α-Syn) in plasma of PD patients has yielded promising but inconclusive results. To determine the performance of α-Syn as a diagnostic biomarker of PD, we used a meta-analysis. METHODS: We identified 173 studies through a systematic literature review. From those, only studies reporting data on total α-Syn levels were included in the meta-analysis (10 publications, 1302 participants). Quality of studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: The α-Syn levels were significantly higher in PD patients than healthy controls (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.778, 95% confidence interval = 0.284 to 1.272, p = 0.002). Similar results were found after omitting any individual study from meta-analysis, with SMD ranges from 0.318 (95% CI = 0.064 to 0.572, p = 0.014) to 0.914 (95% CI = 0.349 to 1.480, p = 0.002). According to meta-regression analysis, increased mean patients age (slope = - 0.232, 95% CI = - 0.456 to - 0.008, p = 0.042), increased total number of participants (slope = - 0.007, 95% CI = - 0.013 to - 0.0004, p = 0.038), and increased percentage of males (slope = - 6.444, 95% CI = - 10.841 to - 2.047, p = 0.004) were associated with decreased SMD of α-Syn levels across studies. We did not find any significant association between the SMD in α-Syn levels and disease duration, disease severity, and quality of studies. Most of studies applied ELISA assays. CONCLUSION: Total plasma α-Syn levels were higher in PD patients than controls. Analytical factors were important limitations.
OBJECTIVE: To date, there are no definitive biomarkers for diagnose Parkinson's disease (PD). The detection of α-synuclein (α-Syn) in plasma of PDpatients has yielded promising but inconclusive results. To determine the performance of α-Syn as a diagnostic biomarker of PD, we used a meta-analysis. METHODS: We identified 173 studies through a systematic literature review. From those, only studies reporting data on total α-Syn levels were included in the meta-analysis (10 publications, 1302 participants). Quality of studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: The α-Syn levels were significantly higher in PDpatients than healthy controls (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.778, 95% confidence interval = 0.284 to 1.272, p = 0.002). Similar results were found after omitting any individual study from meta-analysis, with SMD ranges from 0.318 (95% CI = 0.064 to 0.572, p = 0.014) to 0.914 (95% CI = 0.349 to 1.480, p = 0.002). According to meta-regression analysis, increased mean patients age (slope = - 0.232, 95% CI = - 0.456 to - 0.008, p = 0.042), increased total number of participants (slope = - 0.007, 95% CI = - 0.013 to - 0.0004, p = 0.038), and increased percentage of males (slope = - 6.444, 95% CI = - 10.841 to - 2.047, p = 0.004) were associated with decreased SMD of α-Syn levels across studies. We did not find any significant association between the SMD in α-Syn levels and disease duration, disease severity, and quality of studies. Most of studies applied ELISA assays. CONCLUSION: Total plasma α-Syn levels were higher in PDpatients than controls. Analytical factors were important limitations.
Authors: Irene Litvan; Kailash P Bhatia; David J Burn; Christopher G Goetz; Anthony E Lang; Ian McKeith; Niall Quinn; Kapil D Sethi; Cliff Shults; Gregor K Wenning Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Qiao-Xin Li; Su San Mok; Katrina M Laughton; Catriona A McLean; Roberto Cappai; Colin L Masters; Janetta G Culvenor; Malcolm K Horne Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Omar M A El-Agnaf; Sultan A Salem; Katerina E Paleologou; Martin D Curran; Mark J Gibson; Jennifer A Court; Michael G Schlossmacher; David Allsop Journal: FASEB J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: E R Dorsey; R Constantinescu; J P Thompson; K M Biglan; R G Holloway; K Kieburtz; F J Marshall; B M Ravina; G Schifitto; A Siderowf; C M Tanner Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Benoit I Giasson; John E Duda; Shawn M Quinn; Bin Zhang; John Q Trojanowski; Virginia M-Y Lee Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-05-16 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Elena A Ostrakhovitch; Eun-Suk Song; Jessica K A Macedo; Matthew S Gentry; Jorge E Quintero; Craig van Horne; Tritia R Yamasaki Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Silvia M Albillos; Olimpio Montero; Sara Calvo; Berta Solano; José María Trejo; Esther Cubo Journal: Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (N Y) Date: 2021-05-28