Michelle M Mielke1,2, Ryan D Frank1, Jeffrey L Dage3, Andreas Jeromin4,5, Nicholas J Ashton6,7,8,9,10, Kaj Blennow6,10,11, Thomas K Karikari6,10, Eugene Vanmechelen12, Henrik Zetterberg6,10,11,13,14, Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich15, David S Knopman2, Val Lowe16, Guojun Bu17, Prashanthi Vemuri16, Jonathan Graff-Radford2, Clifford R Jack16, Ronald C Petersen1,2. 1. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana. 4. Quanterix Corporation, Lexington, Massachusetts. 5. Cohen Veterans Bioscience, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden. 7. Wallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 8. Maurice Wohl Institute Clinical Neuroscience Institute, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 9. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health and Biomedical Research Unit for Dementia, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation, London, United Kingdom. 10. Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden. 11. Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden. 12. ADx Neurosciences, Ghent, Belgium. 13. UK Dementia Research Institute, UCL, London, United Kingdom. 14. Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom. 15. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 16. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 17. Department of Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Abstract
Importance: Cerebrospinal fluid phosphorylated tau (p-tau) 181, p-tau217, and p-tau231 are associated with neuropathological outcomes, but a comparison of these p-tau isoforms in blood samples is needed. Objective: To conduct a head-to-head comparison of plasma p-tau181 and p-tau231 measured on the single-molecule array (Simoa) platform and p-tau181 and p-tau217 measured on the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) platform on amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET) measures, neurodegeneration, vascular pathology, and cognitive outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study included data from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging collected from March 1, 2015, to September 30, 2017, and analyzed between December 15, 2020, and May 17, 2021. Associations between the 4 plasma p-tau measures and dichotomous amyloid PET, metaregion of interest tau PET, and entorhinal cortex tau PET were analyzed using logistic regression models; the predictive accuracy was summarized using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) statistic. Of 1329 participants without dementia and with p-tau181 and p-tau217 on MSD, 200 participants with plasma p-tau181 and p-tau231 on Simoa and magnetic resonance imaging and amyloid and tau PET data at the same study visit were eligible. Main Outcomes And Measures: Primary outcomes included amyloid (greater than 1.48 standardized uptake value ratio) and tau PET, white matter hyperintensities, white matter microstructural integrity (fractional anisotropy genu of corpus callosum and hippocampal cingulum bundle), and cognition. Results: Of 200 included participants, 101 (50.5%) were male, and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 79.5 (71.1-84.1) years. A total of 177 were cognitively unimpaired (CU) and 23 had mild cognitive impairment. Compared with amyloid-negative CU participants, among amyloid-positive CU participants, the median (IQR) Simoa p-tau181 measure was 49% higher (2.58 [2.00-3.72] vs 1.73 [1.45-2.13] pg/mL), MSD p-tau181 measure was 53% higher (1.22 [0.91-1.56] vs 0.80 [0.66-0.97] pg/mL), MSD p-tau217 measure was 77% higher (0.23 [0.17-0.34] vs 0.13 [0.09-0.18] pg/mL), and Simoa p-tau231 measure was 49% higher (20.21 [15.60-25.41] vs 14.27 [11.27-18.10] pg/mL). There were no differences between the p-tau species for amyloid PET and tau PET metaregions of interest. However, among CU participants, both MSD p-tau181 and MSD p-tau217 more accurately predicted abnormal entorhinal cortex tau PET than Simoa p-tau181 (MSD p-tau181: AUROC, 0.80 vs 0.70; P = .046; MSD p-tau217: AUROC, 0.81 vs 0.70; P = .04). MSD p-tau181 and p-tau217 and Simoa p-tau181, but not p-tau231, were associated with greater white matter hyperintensity volume and lower white matter microstructural integrity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this largely presymptomatic population, these results suggest subtle differences across plasma p-tau species and platforms for the prediction of amyloid and tau PET and magnetic resonance imaging measures of cerebrovascular and Alzheimer-related pathology.
Importance: Cerebrospinal fluid phosphorylated tau (p-tau) 181, p-tau217, and p-tau231 are associated with neuropathological outcomes, but a comparison of these p-tau isoforms in blood samples is needed. Objective: To conduct a head-to-head comparison of plasma p-tau181 and p-tau231 measured on the single-molecule array (Simoa) platform and p-tau181 and p-tau217 measured on the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) platform on amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET) measures, neurodegeneration, vascular pathology, and cognitive outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study included data from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging collected from March 1, 2015, to September 30, 2017, and analyzed between December 15, 2020, and May 17, 2021. Associations between the 4 plasma p-tau measures and dichotomous amyloid PET, metaregion of interest tau PET, and entorhinal cortex tau PET were analyzed using logistic regression models; the predictive accuracy was summarized using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) statistic. Of 1329 participants without dementia and with p-tau181 and p-tau217 on MSD, 200 participants with plasma p-tau181 and p-tau231 on Simoa and magnetic resonance imaging and amyloid and tau PET data at the same study visit were eligible. Main Outcomes And Measures: Primary outcomes included amyloid (greater than 1.48 standardized uptake value ratio) and tau PET, white matter hyperintensities, white matter microstructural integrity (fractional anisotropy genu of corpus callosum and hippocampal cingulum bundle), and cognition. Results: Of 200 included participants, 101 (50.5%) were male, and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 79.5 (71.1-84.1) years. A total of 177 were cognitively unimpaired (CU) and 23 had mild cognitive impairment. Compared with amyloid-negative CU participants, among amyloid-positive CU participants, the median (IQR) Simoa p-tau181 measure was 49% higher (2.58 [2.00-3.72] vs 1.73 [1.45-2.13] pg/mL), MSD p-tau181 measure was 53% higher (1.22 [0.91-1.56] vs 0.80 [0.66-0.97] pg/mL), MSD p-tau217 measure was 77% higher (0.23 [0.17-0.34] vs 0.13 [0.09-0.18] pg/mL), and Simoa p-tau231 measure was 49% higher (20.21 [15.60-25.41] vs 14.27 [11.27-18.10] pg/mL). There were no differences between the p-tau species for amyloid PET and tau PET metaregions of interest. However, among CU participants, both MSD p-tau181 and MSD p-tau217 more accurately predicted abnormal entorhinal cortex tau PET than Simoa p-tau181 (MSD p-tau181: AUROC, 0.80 vs 0.70; P = .046; MSD p-tau217: AUROC, 0.81 vs 0.70; P = .04). MSD p-tau181 and p-tau217 and Simoa p-tau181, but not p-tau231, were associated with greater white matter hyperintensity volume and lower white matter microstructural integrity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this largely presymptomatic population, these results suggest subtle differences across plasma p-tau species and platforms for the prediction of amyloid and tau PET and magnetic resonance imaging measures of cerebrovascular and Alzheimer-related pathology.
Authors: Thomas K Karikari; Nicholas J Ashton; Gunnar Brinkmalm; Wagner S Brum; Andréa L Benedet; Laia Montoliu-Gaya; Juan Lantero-Rodriguez; Tharick Ali Pascoal; Marc Suárez-Calvet; Pedro Rosa-Neto; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 44.711
Authors: Stuart J McCarter; Timothy G Lesnick; Val J Lowe; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Scott A Przybelski; Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich; Vijay K Ramanan; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Kejal Kantarci; Prashanthi Vemuri; Michelle M Mielke; Jonathan Graff-Radford Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Veronica Murroni; Raffaele Cavalli; Andrea Basso; Erika Borella; Chiara Meneghetti; Andrea Melendugno; Francesca Pazzaglia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sherif Bayoumy; Inge M W Verberk; Ben den Dulk; Zulaiga Hussainali; Marissa Zwan; Wiesje M van der Flier; Nicholas J Ashton; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Jeroen Vanbrabant; Erik Stoops; Eugeen Vanmechelen; Jeffrey L Dage; Charlotte E Teunissen Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2021-12-04 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Anette Hardy-Sosa; Karen León-Arcia; Jorge J Llibre-Guerra; Jorge Berlanga-Acosta; Saiyet de la C Baez; Gerardo Guillen-Nieto; Pedro A Valdes-Sosa Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Denis S Smirnov; Nicholas J Ashton; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Joel Simrén; Juan Lantero-Rodriguez; Thomas K Karikari; Annie Hiniker; Robert A Rissman; David P Salmon; Douglas Galasko Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 15.887