ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparison of commercial assays quantifying mature brain-derived neurotrophic factor (mBDNF) and its precursor (pro-BDNF) in human serum.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Versus Sham Stimulation on Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond total BDNF: The proBDNF/mBDNF balance in substance use disorders.Neurobiology of disease · 2026Review
- Article
- The prognostic potential of circulating BDNF levels and its polymorphisms in age-related cognitive impairment and neurodegeneration.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and its isoforms (pro- and mBDNF) are promising neurobiomarkers. While total serum BDNF levels have been previously validated, the newer isoforms have not. We aimed to identify the most common serum pro- and mBDNF assays through a literature search (MEDLINE/PubMed, until March 2024), and to compare their methodological performance in 23 human serum samples [total BDNF: R&D Systems, #DBNT00; both isoforms: R&DSystems (#DY3175, #DBD00); Aviscera-Bioscience (#SK00752-09, #SK00752-01); FineTest (#EH4255, #EH0043)]. Western-blot and cross-reactivity assays were used to confirm whether the kits tested for the declared isoforms. The total BDNF (#DBNT00) and pro-BDNF (#DY3175) ELISA kits from R&D Systems, and the pro-BDNF ELISA kits from FineTest (#EH4255) and Aviscera-Bioscience (#SK00752-01) showed high specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility. None of the commercial brands tested for mBDNF quantification showed optimal specificity, although R&D Systems (#DBD00) showed an acceptable result. Additionally, comparison of serum mBDNF levels by direct measurement and estimation (total minus pro-BDNF) using the three R&D Systems kits in the 23 serum samples showed acceptable variation (± 15%). This work indicated that there is a need to continue improving the specificity of some ELISA kits, mainly those measuring mBDNF. Total, pro- and m-BDNF serum levels can be quantified using the R&D Systems kits, whereas pro-BDNF serum levels could, in principle, be measured using any of the three brands evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.