Letter

High performance plasma amyloid-β biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease

  • Nature volume 554, pages 249254 (08 February 2018)
  • doi:10.1038/nature25456
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published:

Abstract

To facilitate clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease, which are expected to be most efficacious at the earliest and mildest stages of the disease1,2, supportive biomarker information is necessary. The only validated methods for identifying amyloid-β deposition in the brain—the earliest pathological signature of Alzheimer’s disease—are amyloid-β positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging or measurement of amyloid-β in cerebrospinal fluid. Therefore, a minimally invasive, cost-effective blood-based biomarker is desirable3,4. Despite much effort3,4,5,6,7, to our knowledge, no study has validated the clinical utility of blood-based amyloid-β markers. Here we demonstrate the measurement of high-performance plasma amyloid-β biomarkers by immunoprecipitation coupled with mass spectrometry. The ability of amyloid-β precursor protein (APP)669–711/amyloid-β (Aβ)1–42 and Aβ1–40/Aβ1–42 ratios, and their composites, to predict individual brain amyloid-β-positive or -negative status was determined by amyloid-β-PET imaging and tested using two independent data sets: a discovery data set (Japan, n = 121) and a validation data set (Australia, n = 252 including 111 individuals diagnosed using 11C-labelled Pittsburgh compound-B (PIB)-PET and 141 using other ligands). Both data sets included cognitively normal individuals, individuals with mild cognitive impairment and individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. All test biomarkers showed high performance when predicting brain amyloid-β burden. In particular, the composite biomarker showed very high areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) in both data sets (discovery, 96.7%, n = 121 and validation, 94.1%, n = 111) with an accuracy approximately equal to 90% when using PIB-PET as a standard of truth. Furthermore, test biomarkers were correlated with amyloid-β-PET burden and levels of Aβ1–42 in cerebrospinal fluid. These results demonstrate the potential clinical utility of plasma biomarkers in predicting brain amyloid-β burden at an individual level. These plasma biomarkers also have cost–benefit and scalability advantages over current techniques, potentially enabling broader clinical access and efficient population screening.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:

    $199

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. The antibody aducanumab reduces Aβ plaques in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 537, 50–56 (2016)

  2. 2.

    , & The evolution of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: implications for prevention trials. Neuron 84, 608–622 (2014)

  3. 3.

    et al. The future of blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 10, 115–131 (2014)

  4. 4.

    et al. Blood-based biomarkers in Alzheimer disease: Current state of the science and a novel collaborative paradigm for advancing from discovery to clinic. Alzheimers Dement. 13, 45–58 (2017)

  5. 5.

    et al. Changes in plasma amyloid β in a longitudinal study of aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 10, 53–61 (2014)

  6. 6.

    et al. Association of plasma and cortical amyloid beta is modulated by APOE ε4 status. Alzheimers Dement. 10, e9–e18 (2014)

  7. 7.

    et al. Plasma concentrations of free amyloid β cannot predict the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 13, 778–782 (2017)

  8. 8.

    et al. Novel plasma biomarker surrogating cerebral amyloid deposition. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B, Phys. Biol. Sci. 90, 353–364 (2014)

  9. 9.

    et al. Amyloid β concentrations and stable isotope labeling kinetics of human plasma specific to central nervous system amyloidosis. Alzheimers Dement. 13, 841–849 (2017)

  10. 10.

    et al. Quantitative analysis of amyloid-β peptides in cerebrospinal fluid using immunoprecipitation and MALDI-Tof mass spectrometry. Brief. Funct. Genomic. Proteomic. 6, 149–158 (2007)

  11. 11.

    , , & Identification and quantification of amyloid b-related peptides in human plasma using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Proc. Jpn. Acad., Ser. B, Phys. Biol. Sci. 90, 104–117 (2014)

  12. 12.

    et al. The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) study of aging: methodology and baseline characteristics of 1112 individuals recruited for a longitudinal study of Alzheimer’s disease. Int. Psychogeriatr. 21, 672–687 (2009)

  13. 13.

    et al. 18F-flutemetamol amyloid imaging in Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment: a phase 2 trial. Ann. Neurol. 68, 319–329 (2010)

  14. 14.

    et al. In vivo imaging of amyloid deposition in Alzheimer disease using the radioligand 18F-AV-45 (florbetapir F 18). J. Nucl. Med. 51, 913–920 (2010)

  15. 15.

    et al. Amyloid PET imaging in Alzheimer’s disease: a comparison of three radiotracers. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 41, 1398–1407 (2014)

  16. 16.

    et al. Amyloid and APOE ε4 interact to influence short-term decline in preclinical Alzheimer disease. Neurology 82, 1760–1767 (2014)

  17. 17.

    et al. En attendant centiloid. Adv. Res. 2, 723–729 (2014)

  18. 18.

    et al. Comparison of analytical platforms for cerebrospinal fluid measures of β-amyloid 1-42, total tau, and p-tau181 for identifying Alzheimer disease amyloid plaque pathology. Arch. Neurol. 68, 1137–1144 (2011)

  19. 19.

    et al. Comparison of cerebrospinal fluid levels of tau and Aβ 1-42 in Alzheimer disease and frontotemporal degeneration using 2 analytical platforms. Arch. Neurol. 69, 1018–1025 (2012)

  20. 20.

    et al. Relationships between biomarkers in aging and dementia. Neurology 73, 1193–1199 (2009)

  21. 21.

    et al. Alzheimer’s disease normative cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers validated in PET amyloid-β characterized subjects from the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) study. J. Alzheimers Dis. 48, 175–187 (2015)

  22. 22.

    et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker signature in Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative subjects. Ann. Neurol. 65, 403–413 (2009)

  23. 23.

    , , & A systemic view of Alzheimer disease - insights from amyloid-β metabolism beyond the brain. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 13, 612–623 (2017)

  24. 24.

    et al. Plasma β-amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease and vascular disease. Sci. Rep. 6, 26801 (2016)

  25. 25.

    et al. Plasma amyloid-β levels are significantly associated with a transition toward Alzheimer’s disease as measured by cognitive decline and change in neocortical amyloid burden. J. Alzheimers Dis. 40, 95–104 (2014)

  26. 26.

    , & The C-terminus of the β protein is critical in amyloidogenesis. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 695, 144–148 (1993)

  27. 27.

    Are CSF Assays Finally Ready for Prime Time? Alzforum (2017)

  28. 28.

    et al. Assessment of the incremental diagnostic value of florbetapir F 18 imaging in patients with cognitive impairment: the incremental diagnostic value of amyloid PET with [18F]-florbetapir (INDIA-FBP) Study. JAMA Neurol. 73, 1417–1424 (2016)

  29. 29.

    & Clinical impact of amyloid positron emission tomography—is it worth the cost? JAMA Neurol. 73, 1396–1398 (2016)

  30. 30.

    et al. Guidelines for the standardization of preanalytic variables for blood-based biomarker studies in Alzheimer’s disease research. Alzheimers Dement. 11, 549–560 (2015)

  31. 31.

    et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 7, 270–279 (2011)

  32. 32.

    et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 7, 263–269 (2011)

  33. 33.

    et al. Amyloid imaging results from the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) study of aging. Neurobiol. Aging 31, 1275–1283 (2010)

  34. 34.

    et al. Comparison of MR-less PiB SUVR quantification methods. Neurobiol. Aging 36, S159–S166 (2015)

  35. 35.

    et al. Use of florbetapir-PET for imaging β-amyloid pathology. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 305, 275–283 (2011)

  36. 36.

    et al. Implementation and validation of an adaptive template registration method for 18F-flutemetamol imaging data. J. Nucl. Med. 54, 1472–1478 (2013)

  37. 37.

    et al. A selected reaction monitoring (SRM)-based method for absolute quantification of Aβ38, Aβ40, and Aβ42 in cerebrospinal fluid of Alzheimer’s disease patients and healthy controls. J. Alzheimers Dis. 33, 1021–1032 (2013)

  38. 38.

    et al. Age and amyloid effects on human central nervous system amyloid-beta kinetics. Ann. Neurol. 78, 439–453 (2015)

  39. 39.

    et al. Overcoming synthetic Aβ peptide aging: a new approach to an age-old problem. Amyloid 16, 71–80 (2009)

  40. 40.

    et al. N-Terminal pyroglutamate formation of Aβ38 and Aβ40 enforces oligomer formation and potency to disrupt hippocampal long-term potentiation. J. Neurochem. 121, 774–784 (2012)

  41. 41.

    , , & Amyloid-beta 42 adsorption following serial tube transfer. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 6, 5 (2014)

  42. 42.

    et al. Mass++: A visualization and analysis tool for mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 13, 3846–3853 (2014)

  43. 43.

    et al. CSF biomarker variability in the Alzheimer’s Association quality control program. Alzheimers Dement. 9, 251–261 (2013)

  44. 44.

    & An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 591–611 (1965)

  45. 45.

    Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3, 32–35 (1950)

  46. 46.

    , & Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44, 837–845 (1988)

  47. 47.

    , , & Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat. Med. 27, 157–172 (2008)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The NCGG study group thank all participants of the study, clinicians who referred patients, and all the staff who supported the MULNIAD project. We thank N. Sugimoto for conducting statistical analyses, S. Niida and the NCGG Biobank members for the management of plasma samples and M. Kawakage for data monitoring. This study was supported by The Research Funding for Longevity Sciences (25-24 and 26-30) from the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, and partially supported by Research and Development Grants for Dementia from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED. This study is registered under UMIN ID: 000016144. The AIBL study would like to thank all participants of the study and the clinicians who referred participants. The AIBL study (https://aibl.csiro.au/) is a consortium between Austin Health, CSIRO, Edith Cowan University and the Florey Institute, The University of Melbourne. Partial financial support was provided by the Alzheimer’s Association (US), the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, an anonymous foundation, the Cooperative Research Centre for Mental Health, CSIRO Science and Industry Endowment Fund, the Dementia Collaborative Research Centres, the Victorian Government Operational Infrastructure Support program, the McCusker Alzheimer’s Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Yulgilbar Foundation. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, data analyses or data interpretation.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Center for Development of Advanced Medicine for Dementia, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu, Aichi 474-8511, Japan

    • Akinori Nakamura
    • , Takashi Kato
    • , Kengo Ito
    •  & Katsuhiko Yanagisawa
  2. Koichi Tanaka Mass Spectrometry Research Laboratory, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto 604-8511, Japan

    • Naoki Kaneko
    • , Shinichi Iwamoto
    •  & Koichi Tanaka
  3. Austin Health, Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Center for PET, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia

    • Victor L. Villemagne
    • , Vincent Doré
    •  & Christopher Rowe
  4. The Florey Institute, The University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Australia

    • Victor L. Villemagne
    • , Chris Fowler
    • , Qiao-Xin Li
    • , Christopher Rowe
    •  & Colin L. Masters
  5. National Hospital for Geriatric Medicine, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu, Aichi 474-8511, Japan

    • Takashi Kato
    • , Yutaka Arahata
    •  & Kengo Ito
  6. Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO, Brisbane 4029, Australia

    • James Doecke
    •  & Vincent Doré
  7. Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia

    • Ralph Martins
  8. Laboratory of Neuropathology and Neuroscience, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan

    • Taisuke Tomita
  9. Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan

    • Katsumi Matsuzaki
  10. Team for Neuroimaging Research, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo 173-0015, Japan

    • Kenji Ishii
  11. Department of Radiology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osakasayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan

    • Kazunari Ishii

Authors

  1. Search for Akinori Nakamura in:

  2. Search for Naoki Kaneko in:

  3. Search for Victor L. Villemagne in:

  4. Search for Takashi Kato in:

  5. Search for James Doecke in:

  6. Search for Vincent Doré in:

  7. Search for Chris Fowler in:

  8. Search for Qiao-Xin Li in:

  9. Search for Ralph Martins in:

  10. Search for Christopher Rowe in:

  11. Search for Taisuke Tomita in:

  12. Search for Katsumi Matsuzaki in:

  13. Search for Kenji Ishii in:

  14. Search for Kazunari Ishii in:

  15. Search for Yutaka Arahata in:

  16. Search for Shinichi Iwamoto in:

  17. Search for Kengo Ito in:

  18. Search for Koichi Tanaka in:

  19. Search for Colin L. Masters in:

  20. Search for Katsuhiko Yanagisawa in:

Contributions

A.N., N.K., T.K., K.It., K.T., and K.Y. designed the study. A.N., N.K., V.L.V., C.L.M., and K.Y. wrote the manuscript and A.N., N.K., V.L.V., V.D., T.T., and K.M. made the figures. A.N., V.L.V., T.K., V.D., C.F., Q.-X.L., R.M., C.R., Ke.Is., Ka.Is., Y.A., and C.L.M. collected the data. A.N., N.K., V.L.V., T.K., J.D., V.D., C.F., Q.-X.K., R.M., C.R., Y.A., T.T., K.M., S.I., K.It., K.T., and C.L.M. analysed the data. All authors interpreted the data and critically revised the manuscript.

Competing interests

N.K., S.I. and K.T. are employees of Shimadzu. NCGG and Shimadzu have patents pending that are related to this study: PCT/JP2016/076706 and PCT/JP2015/064386. Shimadzu has patents pending: JP 2015-140899 and US 15/209331. V.L.V. received grants from CSIRO and NHMRC during the study. J.D. received grants from CRC for Mental Health, during the study, and has patent TW8546/AU pending.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katsuhiko Yanagisawa.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks H. Federoff, R. Thomas and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Life Sciences Reporting Summary

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Text, Discussion, additional experiments and references.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.