Startseite Effects of storage conditions on the stability of blood-based markers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Effects of storage conditions on the stability of blood-based markers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease

  • Andrea Mansilla , Marina Canyelles , Rosa Ferrer , Javier Arranz , Íñigo Rodríguez-Baz , Nuole Zhu , Sara Rubio-Guerra ORCID logo , Shaimaa El Bounasri , Oriol Sánchez , Soraya Torres , Juan Fortea , Alberto Lleó , Daniel Alcolea EMAIL logo und Mireia Tondo ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 24. April 2023
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill
Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Aus der Zeitschrift Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) Band 61 Heft 9

Abstract

Objectives

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is considered the most common cause of dementia in older people. Recently, blood-based markers (BBM) Aβ1-42, Aβ1-40, and phospho Tau181 (p-Tau181) have demonstrated the potential to transform the diagnosis and prognostic assessment of AD. Our aim was to investigate the effect of different storage conditions on the quantification of these BBM and to evaluate the interchangeability of plasma and serum samples.

Methods

Forty-two individuals with some degree of cognitive impairment were studied. Thirty further patients were retrospectively selected. Aβ1-42, Aβ1-40, and p-Tau181 were quantified using the LUMIPULSE-G600II automated platform. To assess interchangeability between conditions, correction factors for magnitudes that showed strong correlations were calculated, followed by classification consistency studies.

Results

Storing samples at 4 °C for 8–9 days was associated with a decrease in Aβ fractions but not when stored for 1–2 days. Using the ratio partially attenuated the pre-analytical effects. For p-Tau181, samples stored at 4 °C presented lower concentrations, whereas frozen samples presented higher ones. Concerning classification consistency in comparisons that revealed strong correlations (p-Tau181), the percentage of total agreement was greater than 90 % in a large number of the tested cut-offs values.

Conclusions

Our findings provide relevant information for the standardization of sample collection and storage in the analysis of AD BBM in an automated platform. This knowledge is crucial to ensure their introduction into clinical settings.

Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; amyloid; automated platforms; blood-based markers; plasma; preanalytical phase; serum; tau
Corresponding authors: Daniel Alcolea, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/Sant Quintí 89, 08041 Barcelona, Spain; Sant Pau Memory Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau) Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; and Centre of Biomedical Investigation Network for Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIBERNED), Madrid, Spain, Phone: +34 93 5537358, E-mail: ; and Mireia Tondo, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, C/Sant Quintí 89, 08041 Barcelona, Spain; Department of Biochemistry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB) Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Centre of Biomedical Investigation Network for Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases (CIBERDEM), Madrid, Spain; and Comisión de Neuroquímica y Enfermedades Neurológicas, Sociedad Española de Medicina de Laboratorio, Barcelona, Spain, Phone: +34 93 5537358, E-mail:
Andrea Mansilla and Marina Canyelles contributed equally to this work.

Funding source: Instituto de Salud Carlos III

Award Identifier / Grant number: PI21/00140; PI18/00435; INT19/00016; PI17/01896; A

Funding source: Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

Award Identifier / Grant number: H2020-SC1-BHC-2018-2020/GA 965422

Funding source: Generalitat de Catalunya

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2017-SGR-547; SLT006/17/125; SLT002/16/408

Funding source: Fundació la Marató de TV3

Award Identifier / Grant number: 20142610

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants of this study and all the members of the clinical and biochemical teams involved in the study.

  1. Research funding: This work was supported by CIBERDEM and CIBERNED and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI21/00140 to MT, PI18/00435 and INT19/00016 to DA, PI17/01896 and AC19/00103 to AL), funded by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), Unión Europea, “Una manera de hacer Europa”. This work was also supported by Generalitat de Catalunya (2017-SGR-547, SLT006/17/125 to DA, SLT002/16/408 to AL), European Union’s Horizon 2020, ‘MES-CoBraD’ (H2020-SC1-BHC-2018-2020/GA 965422 to JF), and “Marató TV3” foundation grants 20142610 to AL. We thank Fujirebio Europe NV for kindly providing the necessary reagents to perform the study.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: All participants gave written informed consent before enrolment in accordance with the guidelines of the local Ethics Committee.

References

1. de Souza, LC, Sarazin, M, Goetz, C, Dubois, B. Clinical investigations in primary care. Front Neurol Neurosci 2009;24:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1159/000197897.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Nichols, E, Steinmetz, JD, Vollset, SE, Fukutaki, K, Chalek, J, Abd-Allah, F, et al., GBD 2019 Dementia Forecasting Collaborators. Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Public Health 2022;7:e105-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00249-8.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Jack, CR, Bennett, DA, Blennow, K, Carrillo, MC, Dunn, B, Haeberlein, SB, et al.. NIA-AA research framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2018;14:535–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.018.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Dubois, B, Feldman, HH, Jacova, C, Hampel, H, Molinuevo, JL, Blennow, K, et al.. Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease: the IWG-2 criteria. Lancet Neurol 2014;13:614–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(14)70090-0.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Lleó, A, Cavedo, E, Parnetti, L, Vanderstichele, H, Herukka, SK, Andreasen, N, et al.. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in trials for Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.232.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

6. van der Kant, R, Goldstein, LSB, Ossenkoppele, R. Amyloid-β-independent regulators of tau pathology in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 2020;21:21–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0240-3.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Blennow, K. Dementia in 2010: paving the way for Alzheimer disease drug development. Nat Rev Neurol 2011;7:65–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2010.214.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Lewczuk, P, Riederer, P, O’Bryant, SE, Verbeek, MM, Dubois, B, Visser, PJ, et al.. Cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers for neurodegenerative dementias: an update of the Consensus of the Task Force on Biological Markers in Psychiatry of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry. World J Biol Psychiatr 2018;19:244–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15622975.2017.1375556.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Delaby, C, Teunissen, CE, Blennow, K, Alcolea, D, Arisi, I, Amar, EB, et al.. Clinical reporting following the quantification of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease: an international overview. Alzheimers Dement 2022;18:1868–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12545.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Janelidze, S, Teunissen, CE, Zetterberg, H, Allué, JA, Sarasa, L, Eichenlaub, U, et al.. Head-to-head comparison of 8 plasma amyloid-β 42/40 assays in Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol 2021;78:1375–82. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3180.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Hansson, O, Edelmayer, RM, Boxer, AL, Carrillo, MC, Mielke, MM, Rabinovici, GD, et al.. The Alzheimer’s Association appropriate use recommendations for blood biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2022;18:2669–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12756.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

12. Hansson, O, Mikulskis, A, Fagan, AM, Teunissen, C, Zetterberg, H, Vanderstichele, H, et al.. The impact of preanalytical variables on measuring cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis: a review. Alzheimers Dement 2018;14:1313–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.05.008.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Verberk, IMW, Misdorp, EO, Koelewijn, J, Ball, AJ, Blennow, K, Dage, JL, et al.. Characterization of pre-analytical sample handling effects on a panel of Alzheimer’s disease-related blood-based biomarkers: results from the Standardization of Alzheimer’s Blood Biomarkers (SABB) working group. Alzheimers Dement 2022;18:1484–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12510.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

14. Rózga, M, Bittner, T, Batrla, R, Karl, J. Preanalytical sample handling recommendations for Alzheimer’s disease plasma biomarkers. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2019;11:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2019.02.002.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Ashton, NJ, Suárez-Calvet, M, Karikari, TK, Lantero-Rodriguez, J, Snellman, A, Sauer, M, et al.. Effects of pre-analytical procedures on blood biomarkers for Alzheimer’s pathophysiology, glial activation, and neurodegeneration. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2021;13:e12168. https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12168.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

16. Mariani, E, Monastero, R, Mecocci, P. Mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review. J Alzheimers Dis 2007;12:23–35. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2007-12104.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Chang, JF, Liu, HC, Chen, HH, Chen, WP, Juang, JL, Wang, PN, et al.. Effect of times to blood processing on the stability of blood proteins associated with dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2020;49:303–11. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509358.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Keshavan, A, Heslegrave, A, Zetterberg, H, Schott, JM. Stability of blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease over multiple freeze-thaw cycles. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2018;10:448–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2018.06.001.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

19. Liu, HC, Chiu, MJ, Lin, CH, Yang, SY. Stability of plasma amyloid-β 1-40, amyloid-β 1-42, and total tau protein over repeated freeze/thaw cycles. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra 2020;10:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1159/000506278.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Musso, G, Cosma, C, Zaninotto, M, Gabelli, C, Basso, D, Plebani, M. Pre-analytical variability of the Lumipulse immunoassay for plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Chem Lab Med 2023;61:e53–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0770.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Alcolea, D, Clarimón, J, Carmona-Iragui, M, Illán-Gala, I, Morenas-Rodríguez, E, Barroeta, I, et al.. The Sant Pau Initiative on Neurodegeneration (SPIN) cohort: a data set for biomarker discovery and validation in neurodegenerative disorders. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2019;5:597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2019.09.005.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

22. Ferrer, R, Zhu, N, Arranz, J, Porcel, I, El Bounasri, S, Sánchez, O, et al.. Importance of cerebrospinal fluid storage conditions for the Alzheimer’s disease diagnostics on an automated platform. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:1058–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0134.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Pannee, J, Shaw, LM, Korecka, M, Waligorska, T, Teunissen, CE, Stoops, E, et al.. The global Alzheimer’s Association round robin study on plasma amyloid β methods. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2021;13:e12242. https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12242.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

24. Kac, PR, Gonzalez-Ortiz, F, Simrén, J, Dewit, N, Vanmechelen, E, Zetterberg, H, et al.. Diagnostic value of serum versus plasma phospho-tau for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Res Ther 2022;14:65. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.067140.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2023-01-16
Accepted: 2023-04-12
Published Online: 2023-04-24
Published in Print: 2023-08-28

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Developments in reference measurement systems for C-reactive protein and the importance of maintaining currently used clinical decision-making criteria
  4. Review
  5. Why C-reactive protein is one of the most requested tests in clinical laboratories?
  6. Mini Reviews
  7. C-reactive protein and clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: the importance of harmonized measurements
  8. Current performance of C-reactive protein determination and derivation of quality specifications for its measurement uncertainty
  9. Opinion Papers
  10. Implementing metrological traceability of C-reactive protein measurements: consensus summary from the Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine Workshop
  11. Analytical performance specifications for the measurement uncertainty of 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D examinations
  12. A new door to a different world: opportunities from the metaverse and the raise of meta-medical laboratories
  13. Guidelines and Recommendations
  14. Point-of-care testing performed by healthcare professionals outside the hospital setting: consensus based recommendations from the IFCC Committee on Point-of-Care Testing (IFCC C-POCT)
  15. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  16. Effects of storage conditions on the stability of blood-based markers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease
  17. Long-term stability of thyroid peroxidase antibody (anti-TPO) in serum in the Danish General Suburban Population Study
  18. Exploration of suitable external quality assessment materials for serum C-peptide measurement
  19. Description and validation of an equilibrium dialysis ID-LC-MS/MS candidate reference measurement procedure for free thyroxine in human serum
  20. Evaluation of testosterone, estradiol and progesterone immunoassay calibrators by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry
  21. Lack of comparability of immunoassays for rheumatoid factor isotypes
  22. Validation of ELISA assays for the calculation of FLC indices for the diagnosis of intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis
  23. First-trimester screening for Down syndrome using quadruple maternal biochemical markers
  24. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) in fecal samples: validation of the extraction methodology and stability in short-term storage conditions
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. Interlaboratory variation for NT-proBNP among Swedish laboratories in an external quality program 2011–2021
  27. Infectious Diseases
  28. SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell humoral response assessment after COVID-19 vaccination using a rapid direct real-time PCR amplification
  29. Efficiency evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic strategy combining high throughput quantitative antigen immunoassay and real time PCR
  30. Peri-infection titers of neutralizing and binding antibodies as a predictor of COVID-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated healthcare professionals: importance of the timing
  31. Letters to the Editor
  32. Pooled analysis of laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassays
  33. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different COVID-19 screening strategies based on rapid or laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing
  34. Early kinetics of cellular immunity in recipients of bivalent BNT162b2 vaccine: a proof-of-concept study
  35. Impact of switching total bilirubin assays on the classification of neonates at high risk for hyperbilirubinemia
  36. Discrepancies in PSA values among laboratories: the case of a traveling patient
  37. Measurement of amyloid-β 1–42 in cerebrospinal fluid: a comparison of the second generation Elecsys and INNOTEST
https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-0245
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
Alzheimer’s disease; amyloid; automated platforms; blood-based markers; plasma; preanalytical phase; serum; tau

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Developments in reference measurement systems for C-reactive protein and the importance of maintaining currently used clinical decision-making criteria
  4. Review
  5. Why C-reactive protein is one of the most requested tests in clinical laboratories?
  6. Mini Reviews
  7. C-reactive protein and clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: the importance of harmonized measurements
  8. Current performance of C-reactive protein determination and derivation of quality specifications for its measurement uncertainty
  9. Opinion Papers
  10. Implementing metrological traceability of C-reactive protein measurements: consensus summary from the Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine Workshop
  11. Analytical performance specifications for the measurement uncertainty of 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D examinations
  12. A new door to a different world: opportunities from the metaverse and the raise of meta-medical laboratories
  13. Guidelines and Recommendations
  14. Point-of-care testing performed by healthcare professionals outside the hospital setting: consensus based recommendations from the IFCC Committee on Point-of-Care Testing (IFCC C-POCT)
  15. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  16. Effects of storage conditions on the stability of blood-based markers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease
  17. Long-term stability of thyroid peroxidase antibody (anti-TPO) in serum in the Danish General Suburban Population Study
  18. Exploration of suitable external quality assessment materials for serum C-peptide measurement
  19. Description and validation of an equilibrium dialysis ID-LC-MS/MS candidate reference measurement procedure for free thyroxine in human serum
  20. Evaluation of testosterone, estradiol and progesterone immunoassay calibrators by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry
  21. Lack of comparability of immunoassays for rheumatoid factor isotypes
  22. Validation of ELISA assays for the calculation of FLC indices for the diagnosis of intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis
  23. First-trimester screening for Down syndrome using quadruple maternal biochemical markers
  24. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) in fecal samples: validation of the extraction methodology and stability in short-term storage conditions
  25. Cardiovascular Diseases
  26. Interlaboratory variation for NT-proBNP among Swedish laboratories in an external quality program 2011–2021
  27. Infectious Diseases
  28. SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell humoral response assessment after COVID-19 vaccination using a rapid direct real-time PCR amplification
  29. Efficiency evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic strategy combining high throughput quantitative antigen immunoassay and real time PCR
  30. Peri-infection titers of neutralizing and binding antibodies as a predictor of COVID-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated healthcare professionals: importance of the timing
  31. Letters to the Editor
  32. Pooled analysis of laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassays
  33. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different COVID-19 screening strategies based on rapid or laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing
  34. Early kinetics of cellular immunity in recipients of bivalent BNT162b2 vaccine: a proof-of-concept study
  35. Impact of switching total bilirubin assays on the classification of neonates at high risk for hyperbilirubinemia
  36. Discrepancies in PSA values among laboratories: the case of a traveling patient
  37. Measurement of amyloid-β 1–42 in cerebrospinal fluid: a comparison of the second generation Elecsys and INNOTEST
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 20.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2023-0245/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen