Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30496192›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Protein variability in cerebrospinal fluid and its possible implications for neurological protein biomarker research.

Lukas M Schilde, Steffen Kösters, Simone Steinbach, Karin Schork, Martin Eisenacher, Sara Galozzi, Michael Turewicz, Katalin Barkovits, Brit Mollenhauer, Katrin Marcus and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Blood DNA methylomic signatures associated with CSF biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease in the EMIF-AD study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Lukas M SchildeMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Steffen KöstersMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Simone SteinbachMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Karin SchorkMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Martin EisenacherMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2687-7444
Sara GalozziMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Michael TurewiczMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Katalin BarkovitsMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Brit MollenhauerParacelsus-Elena-Klinik, Klinikstraße, Kassel, and University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of Neurology, Göttingen, Germany.
Katrin MarcusMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.
Caroline MayMedizinisches Proteom-Center, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstrasse, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6532-5979

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cerebrospinal fluid is investigated in biomarker studies for various neurological disorders of the central nervous system due to its proximity to the brain. Currently, only a limited number of biomarkers have been validated in independent studies. The high variability in the protein composition and protein abundance of cerebrospinal fluid between as well as within individuals might be an important reason for this phenomenon. To evaluate this possibility, we investigated the inter- and intraindividual variability in the cerebrospinal fluid proteome globally, with a specific focus on disease biomarkers described in the literature. Cerebrospinal fluid from a longitudinal study group including 12 healthy control subjects was analyzed by label-free quantification (LFQ) via LC-MS/MS. Data were quantified via MaxQuant. Then, the intra- and interindividual variability and the reference change value were calculated for every protein. We identified and quantified 791 proteins, and 216 of these proteins were abundant in all samples and were selected for further analysis. For these proteins, we found an interindividual coefficient of variation of up to 101.5% and an intraindividual coefficient of variation of up to 29.3%. Remarkably, these values were comparably high for both proteins that were published as disease biomarkers and other proteins. Our results support the hypothesis that natural variability greatly impacts cerebrospinal fluid protein biomarkers because high variability can lead to unreliable results. Thus, we suggest controlling the variability of each protein to distinguish between good and bad biomarker candidates, e.g., by utilizing reference change values to improve the process of evaluating potential biomarkers in future studies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersCerebrospinal Fluid ProteinsFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedNervous System DiseasesProteomicsBiomarkersCerebrospinal Fluid Proteins

Identifiers

PMID30496192
PMCPMC6264484

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.