The choroid plexus, a tissue responsible for producing cerebrospinal fluid, is found predominantly in the lateral and fourth ventricles of the brain. This highly vascularized and ciliated tissue is made up of specialized epithelial cells and capillary networks surrounded by connective tissue. Given the complex structure of the choroid plexus, this can potentially result in contamination during routine tissue dissection. Bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing studies, as well as genome-wide in situ hybridization experiments (Allen Brain Atlas), have identified several canonical markers of choroid plexus such as Ttr, Folr1, and Prlr. We used the Ttr gene as a marker to query the Gene Expression Omnibus database for transcriptome studies of brain tissue and identified at least some level of likely choroid contamination in numerous studies that could have potentially confounded data analysis and interpretation. We also analyzed transcriptomic datasets from human samples from Allen Brain Atlas and the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) database and found abundant choroid contamination, with regions in closer proximity to choroid more likely to be impacted such as hippocampus, cervical spinal cord, substantia nigra, hypothalamus, and amygdala. In addition, analysis of both the Allen Brain Atlas and GTEx datasets for differentially expressed genes between likely “high contamination” and “low contamination” groups revealed a clear enrichment of choroid plexus marker genes and gene ontology pathways characteristic of these ciliated choroid cells. Inclusion of these contaminated samples could result in biological misinterpretation or simply add to the statistical noise and mask true effects. We cannot assert that Ttr or other genes/proteins queried in targeted assays are artifacts from choroid contamination as some of these differentials may be due to true biological effects. However, for studies that have an unequal distribution of choroid contamination among groups, investigators may wish to remove contaminated samples from analyses or incorporate choroid marker gene expression into their statistical modeling. In addition, we suggest that a simple RT-qPCR or western blot for choroid markers would mitigate unintended choroid contamination for any experiment, but particularly for samples intended for more costly omic profiling. This study highlights an unexpected problem for neuroscientists, but it is also quite possible that unintended contamination of adjacent structures occurs during dissections for other tissues but has not been widely recognized.

OBJECTIVE Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devasting primary brain tumor with less than a 5% 5-year survival. Treatment response assessment can be challenging because of inflammatory pseudoprogression that mimics true tumor progression clinically and on imaging. Developing additional noninvasive assays is critical. In this article, the authors review various biomarkers that could be used in developing liquid biopsies for GBM, along with strengths, limitations, and future applications. In addition, they present a potential liquid biopsy design based on the use of an extracellular vesicle–based liquid biopsy targeting nonneoplastic extracellular vesicles. METHODS The authors conducted a current literature review of liquid biopsy in GBM by searching the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Articles were assessed for type of biomarker, isolation methodology, analytical techniques, and clinical relevance. RESULTS Recent work has shown that liquid biopsies of plasma, blood, and/or CSF hold promise as noninvasive clinical tools that can be used to diagnose recurrence, assess treatment response, and predict patient outcomes in GBM. Liquid biopsy in GBM has focused primarily on extracellular vesicles, cell-free tumor nucleic acids, and whole-cell isolates as focal biomarkers. GBM tumor signatures have been generated via analysis of tumor gene mutations, unique RNA expression, and metabolic and proteomic alterations. Liquid biopsies capture tumor heterogeneity, identifying alterations in GBM tumors that may be undetectable via surgical biopsy specimens. Finally, biomarker burden can be used to assess treatment response and recurrence in GBM. CONCLUSIONS Liquid biopsy offers a promising avenue for monitoring treatment response and recurrence in GBM without invasive procedures. Although additional steps must be taken to bring liquid biopsy into the clinic, proof-of-principle studies and isolation methodologies are promising. Ultimately, CSF and/or plasma-based liquid biopsy is likely to be a powerful tool in the neurosurgeon’s arsenal in the near future for the treatment and management of GBM patients.

No abstract