Jigyasha Timsina1,2, Duber Gomez-Fonseca1,2, Lihua Wang1,2, Anh Do2,3, Dan Western1,2, Ignacio Alvarez4, Miquel Aguilar4, Pau Pastor4, Rachel L Henson5,6, Elizabeth Herries5,6, Chengjie Xiong3, Suzanne E Schindler5,6, Anne M Fagan5,6,7, Randall J Bateman5,6,7, Martin Farlow8,9, John C Morris6,7, Richard Perrin6,10,11, Krista Moulder6, Jason Hassenstab6, Jasmeer Chhatwal12, Hiroshi Mori13, Yun Ju Sung1,2,3, Carlos Cruchaga1,2,5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. NeuroGenomics and Informatics Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. Memory Disorders Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Mutua Terrassa, Terrassa, Spain. 5. Hope Center for Neurologic Diseases, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 7. SILQ Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 8. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 9. Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 10. The Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 11. Department of Pathology & Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. 12. Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 13. Dept. of Clinical Neuroscience, Osaka City University Medical School, Nagaoka Sutoku University, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SOMAscan assay has an advantage over immunoassay-based methods because it measures a large number of proteins in a cost-effective manner. However, the performance of this technology compared to the routinely used immunoassay techniques needs to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We performed comparative analyses of SOMAscan and immunoassay-based protein measurements for five cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and neurodegeneration: NfL, Neurogranin, sTREM2, VILIP-1, and SNAP-25. METHODS: We compared biomarkers measured in ADNI (N = 689), Knight-ADRC (N = 870), DIAN (N = 115), and Barcelona-1 (N = 92) cohorts. Raw protein values were transformed using z-score in order to combine measures from the different studies. sTREM2 and VILIP-1 had more than one analyte in SOMAscan; all available analytes were evaluated. Pearson's correlation coefficients between SOMAscan and immunoassays were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve were used to compare prediction accuracy of these biomarkers between the two platforms. RESULTS: Neurogranin, VILIP-1, and NfL showed high correlation between SOMAscan and immunoassay measures (r > 0.9). sTREM2 had a fair correlation (r > 0.6), whereas SNAP-25 showed weak correlation (r = 0.06). Measures in both platforms provided similar predicted performance for all biomarkers except SNAP-25 and one of the sTREM2 analytes. sTREM2 showed higher AUC for SOMAscan based measures. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that SOMAscan performs as well as immunoassay approaches for NfL, Neurogranin, VILIP-1, and sTREM2. Our study shows promise for using SOMAscan as an alternative to traditional immunoassay-based measures. Follow-up investigation will be required for SNAP-25 and additional established biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: The SOMAscan assay has an advantage over immunoassay-based methods because it measures a large number of proteins in a cost-effective manner. However, the performance of this technology compared to the routinely used immunoassay techniques needs to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We performed comparative analyses of SOMAscan and immunoassay-based protein measurements for five cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and neurodegeneration: NfL, Neurogranin, sTREM2, VILIP-1, and SNAP-25. METHODS: We compared biomarkers measured in ADNI (N = 689), Knight-ADRC (N = 870), DIAN (N = 115), and Barcelona-1 (N = 92) cohorts. Raw protein values were transformed using z-score in order to combine measures from the different studies. sTREM2 and VILIP-1 had more than one analyte in SOMAscan; all available analytes were evaluated. Pearson's correlation coefficients between SOMAscan and immunoassays were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve were used to compare prediction accuracy of these biomarkers between the two platforms. RESULTS: Neurogranin, VILIP-1, and NfL showed high correlation between SOMAscan and immunoassay measures (r > 0.9). sTREM2 had a fair correlation (r > 0.6), whereas SNAP-25 showed weak correlation (r = 0.06). Measures in both platforms provided similar predicted performance for all biomarkers except SNAP-25 and one of the sTREM2 analytes. sTREM2 showed higher AUC for SOMAscan based measures. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that SOMAscan performs as well as immunoassay approaches for NfL, Neurogranin, VILIP-1, and sTREM2. Our study shows promise for using SOMAscan as an alternative to traditional immunoassay-based measures. Follow-up investigation will be required for SNAP-25 and additional established biomarkers.
Authors: Rawan Tarawneh; Gina D'Angelo; Elizabeth Macy; Chengjie Xiong; Deborah Carter; Nigel J Cairns; Anne M Fagan; Denise Head; Mark A Mintun; Jack H Ladenson; Jin-Moo Lee; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Laura M Raffield; Hong Dang; Katherine A Pratte; Sean Jacobson; Lucas A Gillenwater; Elizabeth Ampleford; Igor Barjaktarevic; Patricia Basta; Clary B Clish; Alejandro P Comellas; Elaine Cornell; Jeffrey L Curtis; Claire Doerschuk; Peter Durda; Claire Emson; Christine M Freeman; Xiuqing Guo; Annette T Hastie; Gregory A Hawkins; Julio Herrera; W Craig Johnson; Wassim W Labaki; Yongmei Liu; Brett Masters; Michael Miller; Victor E Ortega; George Papanicolaou; Stephen Peters; Kent D Taylor; Stephen S Rich; Jerome I Rotter; Paul Auer; Alex P Reiner; Russell P Tracy; Debby Ngo; Robert E Gerszten; Wanda K O'Neal; Russell P Bowler Journal: Proteomics Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Yuetiva Deming; Fabia Filipello; Francesca Cignarella; Claudia Cantoni; Simon Hsu; Robert Mikesell; Zeran Li; Jorge L Del-Aguila; Umber Dube; Fabiana Geraldo Farias; Joseph Bradley; John Budde; Laura Ibanez; Maria Victoria Fernandez; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Amanda Heslegrave; Per M Johansson; Johan Svensson; Bengt Nellgård; Alberto Lleo; Daniel Alcolea; Jordi Clarimon; Lorena Rami; José Luis Molinuevo; Marc Suárez-Calvet; Estrella Morenas-Rodríguez; Gernot Kleinberger; Michael Ewers; Oscar Harari; Christian Haass; Thomas J Brett; Bruno A Benitez; Celeste M Karch; Laura Piccio; Carlos Cruchaga Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Muhammad Ali; Yun Ju Sung; Fengxian Wang; Maria V Fernández; John C Morris; Anne M Fagan; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Amanda Heslegrave; Per M Johansson; Johan Svensson; Bengt Nellgård; Alberto Lleó; Daniel Alcolea; Jordi Clarimon; Lorena Rami; José Luis Molinuevo; Marc Suárez-Calvet; Estrella Morenas-Rodríguez; Gernot Kleinberger; Christian Haass; Michael Ewers; Johannes Levin; Martin R Farlow; Richard J Perrin; Carlos Cruchaga Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Omar H Butt; Justin M Long; Rachel L Henson; Elizabeth Herries; Courtney L Sutphen; Anne M Fagan; Carlos Cruchaga; Jack H Ladenson; David M Holtzman; John C Morris; Beau M Ances; Suzanne E Schindler Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 5.133
Authors: Ann Brinkmalm; Gunnar Brinkmalm; William G Honer; Lutz Frölich; Lucrezia Hausner; Lennart Minthon; Oskar Hansson; Anders Wallin; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Annika Öhrfelt Journal: Mol Neurodegener Date: 2014-11-23 Impact factor: 14.195
Authors: Karin L Meeker; Omar H Butt; Brian A Gordon; Anne M Fagan; Suzanne E Schindler; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger; Beau M Ances Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 7.046