Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative diseases

Abstract

Background: The panel of fluid-and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field. Purpose of review: Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care.

Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Common Dementias—Current Status and Perspectives

“…Even if no causal treatments are available for these diseases, a reliable diagnosis as early as possible plays a major role in modulating the course of the disease through drug and non-drug therapies and enable patients to create a self-determined future. The establishment of validated biomarkers for AD and non-AD neurodegenerative disorders remains a major challenge (73).…”

Quantification of Neurological Blood-Based Biomarkers in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019

“…Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is an astrocyte marker; total tau (t-tau) and neurofilament-light chain (NF-L) are axonal markers, and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) is a neuronal marker. These markers are proposed as surrogate markers of neuronal (NF-L, t-tau, and UCH-L1) and neurovascular unit (GFAP) damage in conditions including, but not limited to, acute neurologic trauma and chronic neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer disease ( 10 , 11 ).…”

Plasma neurofilament light and phosphorylated tau 181 as biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease pathology and clinical disease progression

“…After controlling for possible confounders only the association of plasma NfL levels with CDRSoB changes in CN participants remained significant. Previous studies have reported plasma NfL levels to correlate with baseline cognition [ 3 – 7 , 29 – 31 ]. Of these studies, only two considered both CDR and MMSE scores [ 4 , 7 ], and a single study reported a correlation of plasma NfL levels with longitudinal MMSE change in cognitively impaired participants [ 3 ].…”