↓ Skip to main content

Development and Advanced Validation of an Optimized Method for the Quantitation of Aβ42 in Human Cerebrospinal Fluid

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Development and Advanced Validation of an Optimized Method for the Quantitation of Aβ42 in Human Cerebrospinal Fluid
Published in
The AAPS Journal, May 2012
DOI 10.1208/s12248-012-9360-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie C. Cullen, Ross A. Fredenburg, Cindy Evans, Phyllis R. Conliffe, Michael E. Solomon

Abstract

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers have been extensively utilized in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and characterization of progression. One important CSF biomarker is the amyloid beta 42 (Aβ(42)) peptide, a key player in AD pathogenesis. The INNOTEST® Aβ(42) ELISA kit has been widely used but an advanced level of method development and validation has not been reported. To support a clinical trial in AD, we successfully completed a Good Laboratory Practices (GLP)-level validation of the method to establish the parameters of precision, accuracy, parallelism, selectivity, specificity, and linearity of dilution of the assay in CSF matrix, as well as CSF storage stability. Several modifications were required to optimize the assay and ensure consistent results in a clinical-trial setting. These included the use of additional calibrators, an adjusted standard curve range, a minimum required dilution (MRD) of CSF by 6-fold to avoid matrix interference and mitigation of analyte adsorption to labware by the addition of Tween-20. The optimized method displayed a quantitative range of 375-4,500 pg/mL. The inter-assay precision was ≤12.1 % CV and the inter-assay relative accuracy was ≤10.9 % absolute bias, bringing the total error of the assay to ≤23 %. The intra-assay precision of the assay at the high validation standard and below was ≤5.5 % CV; this enables sensitive detection of biomarker changes across a therapeutic regime. The INNOTEST® Aβ(42) ELISA kit, modified as reported here, may be appropriate for many applications, including regulatory agency acceptable clinical diagnosis and pharmacodynamic assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Nigeria 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 61 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 29%
Other 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 11%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Chemistry 6 9%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2012.
All research outputs
#15,249,959
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#916
of 1,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,343
of 163,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 163,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.