Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26483753›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2015

Facilitating the Validation of Novel Protein Biomarkers for Dementia: An Optimal Workflow for the Development of Sandwich Immunoassays.

Marta Del Campo, Wesley Jongbloed, Harry A M Twaalfhoven, Robert Veerhuis, Marinus A Blankenstein, Charlotte E Teunissen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Proteomics techniques in protein biomarker discovery.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marta Del CampoNeurochemistry Laboratory, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands ; Department of Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Wesley JongbloedDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Harry A M TwaalfhovenNeurochemistry Laboratory, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands ; Department of Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Robert VeerhuisNeurochemistry Laboratory, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands ; Department of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Marinus A BlankensteinDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Charlotte E TeunissenNeurochemistry Laboratory, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands ; Department of Clinical Chemistry, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), lead to dementia syndromes. Dementia will pose a huge impact on society and thus it is essential to develop novel tools that are able to detect the earliest, most sensitive, discriminative, and dynamic biomarkers for each of the disorders. To date, the most common assays used in large-scale protein biomarker analysis are enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), such as the sandwich immunoassays, which are sensitive, practical, and easily implemented. However, due to the novelty of many candidate biomarkers identified during proteomics screening, such assays or the antibodies that specifically recognize the desired marker are often not available. The development and optimization of a new ELISA should be carried out with considerable caution since a poor planning can be costly, ineffective, time consuming, and it may lead to a misinterpretation of the findings. Previous guidelines described either the overall biomarker development in more general terms (i.e., the process from biomarker discovery to validation) or the specific steps of performing an ELISA procedure. However, a workflow describing and guiding the main issues in the development of a novel ELISA is missing. Here, we describe a specific and detailed workflow to develop and validate new ELISA for a successful and reliable validation of novel dementia biomarkers. The proposed workflow highlights the main issues in the development of an ELISA and covers several critical aspects, including production, screening, and selection of specific antibodies until optimal fine-tuning of the assay. Although these recommendations are designed to analyze novel biomarkers for dementia in cerebrospinal fluid, they are generally applicable for the development of immunoassays for biomarkers in other human body fluids or tissues. This workflow is designed to maximize the quality of the developed ELISA using a time- and cost-efficient strategy. This will facilitate the validation of the dementia biomarker candidates ultimately allowing accurate diagnostic conclusions.

Indexed as

ADCSFdementiaELISAFTDguidelinesnovel biomarkersworkflow

Identifiers

PMID26483753
PMCPMC4586418
OpenAlexW2147494343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.