Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Diagnostic value of plasma phosphorylated tau181 in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration

Nature Medicine volume 26, pages 387–397 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

With the potential development of new disease-modifying Alzheimer’s disease (AD) therapies, simple, widely available screening tests are needed to identify which individuals, who are experiencing symptoms of cognitive or behavioral decline, should be further evaluated for initiation of treatment. A blood-based test for AD would be a less invasive and less expensive screening tool than the currently approved cerebrospinal fluid or amyloid β positron emission tomography (PET) diagnostic tests. We examined whether plasma tau phosphorylated at residue 181 (pTau181) could differentiate between clinically diagnosed or autopsy-confirmed AD and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Plasma pTau181 concentrations were increased by 3.5-fold in AD compared to controls and differentiated AD from both clinically diagnosed (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.894) and autopsy-confirmed frontotemporal lobar degeneration (area under the curve of 0.878). Plasma pTau181 identified individuals who were amyloid β-PET-positive regardless of clinical diagnosis and correlated with cortical tau protein deposition measured by 18F-flortaucipir PET. Plasma pTau181 may be useful to screen for tau pathology associated with AD.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Plasma pTau181 and plasma NfL per clinical diagnosis.
Fig. 2: Plasma pTau181 in pathology-confirmed cases and MAPT mutation carriers.
Fig. 3: Association of pTau181 and NfL, PiB-PET SUVR, FTP-PET SUVR and amyloid and FTP-PET status.
Fig. 4: Voxelwise correlations of plasma pTau181 and plasma NfL with FTP-PET and gray matter atrophy.

Data availability

All requests for raw and analyzed data and materials will be promptly reviewed by the corresponding author and the University of California, San Francisco to verify whether the request is subject to any intellectual property or confidentiality obligations. Some participant data not included in the paper were generated as part of clinical trials and may be subject to patient confidentiality limitations. Data and materials from participants with FTLD enrolled in ARTFL are accessible via forms that can be found on the ARTFL website (https://www.rarediseasesnetwork.org/cms/artfl/Healthcare-Professionals/Collaborating). Other data and materials that can be shared will be released via a material transfer agreement.

Code availability

All requests for code used for data analyses and data visualization will be promptly reviewed by the corresponding author and the UCSF to verify whether the request is subject to any intellectual property, confidentiality or other licensing obligations. If there are no limitations, the corresponding author will communicate with the requester to share the code.

References

  1. Nature News Round-up. Swine flu snipers, Alzheimer’s drug push and Google’s latest gaming bot. Nature 574 602–603 (2019).

  2. Rabinovici, G. D. et al. Association of amyloid positron emission tomography with subsequent change in clinical management among Medicare beneficiaries with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 94158, 1286–1294 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Landau, S. M. et al. Comparing positron emission tomography imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measurements of β-amyloid. Ann. Neurol. 74, 826–836 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Palmqvist, S. et al. Detailed comparison of amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers for identifying early Alzheimer disease. Neurology 85, 1240–1249 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Rabinovici, G. D. & Miller, B. L. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. CNS Drugs 24, 375–398 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bahia, V. S., Takada, L. T. & Deramecourt, V. Neuropathology of frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a review. Dement. Neuropsychol. 7, 19–26 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Buerger, K. et al. CSF phosphorylated tau protein correlates with neocortical neurofibrillary pathology in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 129, 3035–3041 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tapiola, T. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid β-amyloid 42 and tau proteins as biomarkers of Alzheimer-type pathologic changes in the brain. Arch. Neurol. 66, 382–389 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schöll, M. et al. Biomarkers for tau pathology. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 97, 18–33 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Marquié, M. et al. Validating novel tau positron emission tomography tracer [F-18]-AV-1451 (T807) on postmortem brain tissue. Ann. Neurol. 78, 787–800 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ossenkoppele, R. et al. Discriminative accuracy of [18F]flortaucipir positron emission tomography for Alzheimer disease vs other neurodegenerative disorders. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 320, 1151–1162 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bacioglu, M. et al. Neurofilament light chain in blood and CSF as marker of disease progression in mouse models and in neurodegenerative diseases. Neuron 91, 56–66 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meeter, L. H., Kaat, L. D., Rohrer, J. D. & Van Swieten, J. C. Imaging and fluid biomarkers in frontotemporal dementia. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 13, 406–419 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Khalil, M. et al. Neurofilaments as biomarkers in neurological disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14, 577–589 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meeter, L. H. H. et al. Clinical value of neurofilament and phospho-tau/tau ratio in the frontotemporal dementia spectrum. Neurology 90, e1231–e1239 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ljubenkov, P. A. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers predict frontotemporal dementia trajectory. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 5, 1250–1263 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Scherling, C. S. et al. CSF neurofilament concentration reflects disease severity in frontotemporal degeneration. Ann. Neurol. 75, 116–126 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rojas, J. C. et al. CSF neurofilament light chain and phosphorylated tau 181 predict disease progression in PSP. Neurology 90, e273–e281 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rohrer, J. D. et al. Serum neurofilament light chain protein is a measure of disease intensity in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 87, 1329–1336 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Steinacker, P. et al. Serum neurofilament light chain in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 91, e1390–e1401 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bridel, C., van Wieringen, W. N. & Zetterberg, H. Diagnostic value of cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light protein in neurology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol. 76, 1035–1048 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Preische, O. et al. Serum neurofilament dynamics predicts neurodegeneration and clinical progression in presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Nat. Med. 25, 277–283 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mattsson, N., Cullen, N. C., Andreasson, U., Zetterberg, H. & Blennow, K. Association between longitudinal plasma neurofilament light and neurodegeneration in patients with Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol. 76, 791–799 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakamura, A. et al. High performance plasma amyloid-β biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 554, 249–254 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ovod, V. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Mielke, M. M. et al. Association of plasma total tau level with cognitive decline and risk of mild cognitive impairment or dementia in the Mayo Clinic study on aging. JAMA Neurol. 74, 1073–1080 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Mattsson, N. et al. Plasma tau in Alzheimer disease. Neurology 87, 1827–1835 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen, Z. et al. Learnings about the complexity of extracellular tau aid development of a blood-based screen for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 15, 487–496 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hampel, H. et al. Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: mapping the road to the clinic. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14, 639–652 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Mielke, M. M. et al. Plasma phospho-tau181 increases with Alzheimer’s disease clinical severity and is associated with tau- and amyloid-positron emission tomography. Alzheimer’s Dement. 14, 989–997 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ghetti, B. et al. Frontotemporal dementia caused by microtubule-associated protein tau gene (MAPT) mutations: a chameleon for neuropathology and neuroimaging. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol. 41, 24–46 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Maass, A. et al. NeuroImage comparison of multiple tau-PET measures as biomarkers in aging and Alzheimer’ s disease. Neuroimage 157, 448–463 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Braak, H. & Braak, E. Neuropathological staging of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol. 82, 239–259 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Braak, H., Thal, D. R., Ghebremedhin, E. & Del Tredici, K. Stages of the pathologic process in Alzheimer disease: age categories from 1 to 100 years. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 70, 960–969 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rabinovici, G. D. et al. Distinct MRI atrophy patterns in autopsy-proven Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Demen. 22, 474–488 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Halabi, C. et al. Patterns of striatal degeneration in frontotemporal dementia. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 27, 74–83 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Doraiswamy, P. M. et al. Florbetapir F 18 amyloid PET and 36-month cognitive decline: a prospective multicenter study. Mol. Psychiatry 19, 1044–1051 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Clark, C. M. et al. Cerebral PET with florbetapir compared with neuropathology at autopsy for detection of neuritic amyloid-β plaques: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 11, 669–678 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. La Joie, R. et al. Multisite study of the relationships between antemortem [11C] PIB-PET centiloid values and postmortem measures of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology. Alzheimers Dement. 15, 205–216 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rabinovici, G. D. et al. Amyloid vs FDG-PET in the differential diagnosis of AD and FTLD. Neurology 77, 2034–2042 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Knopman, D. S. et al. Entorhinal cortex tau, amyloid-β, cortical thickness and memory performance in non-demented subjects. Brain 142, 1148–1160 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. van Harten, A. C. et al. Tau and p-tau as CSF biomarkers in dementia: a meta-analysis. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 49, 353–366 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rivero-Santana, A. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for the differential diagnosis between Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration: systematic review, HSROC analysis, and confounding factors. J. Alzheimers Dis. 55, 625–644 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. del Campo, M. et al. Novel CSF biomarkers to discriminate FTLD and its pathological subtypes. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 5, 1163–1175 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Jones, D. T. et al. In vivo 18F-AV-1451 tau PET signal in MAPT mutation carriers varies by expected tau isoforms. Neurology 90, e947–e954 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Smith, R. et al. 18F-AV-1451 tau PET imaging correlates strongly with tau neuropathology in MAPT mutation carriers. Brain 139, 2372–2379 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. La Joie, R. et al. Associations between [18 F]AV1451 tau PET and CSF measures of tau pathology in a clinical sample. Neurology 90, e282–e290 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Pontecorvo, M. J. et al. Relationships between flortaucipir PET tau binding and amyloid burden, clinical diagnosis, age and cognition. Brain 140, 748–763 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jack, C. R. et al. Longitudinal tau PET in ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 141, 1517–1528 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Palmqvist, S. et al. Performance of fully automated plasma assays as screening tests for Alzheimer disease-related β-amyloid status. JAMA Neurol. 76, 1060–1069 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee, S. E. et al. Clinicopathological correlations in corticobasal degeneration. Ann. Neurol. 70, 327–340 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. McKhann, G. M. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Albert, M. S. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Hoglinger, G. U. et al. Clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy: the movement disorder society criteria HHS public access author manuscript. Mov. Disord. 32, 853–864 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Rascovsky, K. et al. Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain 134, 2456–2477 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Gorno-Tempini, M. L. et al. Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology 76, 1006–1014 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Lynch, C. A. et al. The clinical dementia rating sum of box score in mild dementia. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 21, 40–43 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. & McHugh, P. R. ‘Mini-mental state’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 12, 189–198 (1975).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kramer, J. H. et al. Distinctive neuropsychological patterns in frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia, and Alzheimer disease. Cogn. Behav. Neurol. 16, 211–218 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. D’Elia, L. F., Satz, P., Uchiyama, C. & White, T. Color Trails Test. Professional Manual (Psychological Assessment Resources, 1996).

  62. Heaton, R., Miller, S., Taylor, M. & Grant, I. Revised Comprehensive Norms for an Expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: Demographically Adjusted Neuropsychological Norms for African American and Caucasian Adults (Psychological Assessment Resources, 2004).

  63. Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H. & Weintraub, S. Boston Naming Test (Lea & Febiger, 1983).

  64. Yesavage, J. A. et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J. Psychiatr. Res. 17, 37–49 (1982).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Pfeffer, R. I., Kurosaki, T. T., Harrah, C. H. J., Chance, J. M. & Filos, S. Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. J. Gerontol. 37, 323–329 (1982).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schwab, R. & England, A. in Third Symposium on Parkinson’s Disease (eds Billingham, F. H. & Donaldson, M. C.) (Churchill Livingstone, 1969).

  67. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Youden, W. J. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3, 32–35 (1950).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). ADNI2 Procedures Manual (2010). https://adni.loni.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/adni2-procedures-manual.pdf

  70. Ashburner, J. & Friston, K. J. Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 26, 839–851 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Malone, I. B. et al. Accurate automatic estimation of total intracranial volume: a nuisance variable with less nuisance. Neuroimage 104, 366–372 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ashburner, J. & Friston, K. J. NeuroImage diffeomorphic registration using geodesic shooting and Gauss–Newton optimisation. Neuroimage 55, 954–967 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Southekal, S. et al. Flortaucipir F18 quantitation using parametric estimation of reference signal intensity. J. Nucl. Med. 59, 944–951 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Devous, M. D. et al. Test–retest reproducibility for the tau PET imaging agent flortaucipir F 18. J. Nucl. Med. 59, 937–943 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Villeneuve, S. et al. Existing Pittsburgh Compound-B positron emission tomography thresholds are too high: statistical and pathological evaluation. Brain 138, 2020–2033 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Xia, M., Wang, J. & He, Y. BrainNet Viewer: a network visualization tool for human brain connectomics. PLoS One 8, e68910 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S. Lowe designed and conducted Eli Lilly’s study (NCT02624778) and provided a critical review of the manuscript. Data collection and dissemination of the data presented in this manuscript was supported by the LEFFTDS and ARTFL Consortium (LEFFTDS, U01 AG045390 (B.F.B. and H.R.)), funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke (ARTFL, U54-NS092089 (A.L.B.)), part of the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN), an initiative of the Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR), National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), and funded through a collaboration between NCATS and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the Larry L. Hillblom Network and grant P01-AG019724-17 (B.L.M.). Samples from the National Centralized Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (NCRAD), which receives government support under a cooperative agreement grant (U24 AG21886 (T. Foroud)), were used in this study. Imaging analyses were funded by the Tau Consortium, National Institute on Aging grants (R01-AG045611 (G.D.R.), P50-AG023501 (B.L.M.), P50-AG016574 (B.F.B.), P01-AG19724 (B.L.M.), R01-AG038791 (A.L.B.), U54-NS092089 (A.L.B.), State of California Department of Health Services Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center of California grant (04-33516 (B.L.M.)); Michael J. Fox Foundation (G.D.R.); Alzheimer’s Association (AARF-16-443577, R.L.J.) and K08AG052648 (S.S.). L.T.G. receives support from K24AG053435. J.C.R. receives support from K23AG059888. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals enabled use of the 18F-AV-1451 tracer by providing a precursor, but did not provide direct funding and was not involved in data analysis or interpretation. The funding agencies had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data, preparation, review or approval of the manuscript or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Memory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Elisabeth H. Thijssen, Renaud La Joie, Amy Wolf, Amelia Strom, Ping Wang, Leonardo Iaccarino, Viktoriya Bourakova, Yann Cobigo, Hilary Heuer, Salvatore Spina, Lawren VandeVrede, Anna M. Karydas, Joel H. Kramer, Lea T. Grinberg, William W. Seeley, Howie Rosen, Bruce L. Miller, Gil D. Rabinovici, Julio C. Rojas & Adam L. Boxer

  2. Neurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Elisabeth H. Thijssen & Charlotte E. Teunissen

  3. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Xiyun Chai, Nicholas K. Proctor, David C. Airey, Sergey Shcherbinin, Cynthia Duggan Evans, John R. Sims & Jeffrey L. Dage

  4. Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden

    Henrik Zetterberg & Kaj Blennow

  5. Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden

    Henrik Zetterberg & Kaj Blennow

  6. Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, University College London Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK

    Henrik Zetterberg

  7. UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, London, UK

    Henrik Zetterberg

  8. Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Lea T. Grinberg & William W. Seeley

  9. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Bradley F. Boeve, Leah Forsberg & David S. Knopman

  10. Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Gil D. Rabinovici

  11. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    Neill Graff-Radford

  12. Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Murray Grossman

  13. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Edward H. Huey

  14. Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Chiadi Onyike

  15. Department of Neurology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Daniel Kaufer

  16. Department of Neurology, University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Erik Roberson

  17. Department of Neurology, Washington University of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Nupur Ghoshal

  18. Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Sandra Weintraub

  19. Department of Neurology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Brian Appleby

  20. Department of Neuroscience, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Irene Litvan

  21. Department of Neurology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA

    Diana Kerwin

  22. Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Mario Mendez & Yvette Bordelon

  23. Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Behavior, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Giovanni Coppola & Eliana Marisa Ramos

  24. Department of Medicine, Neurology, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    M. Carmela Tartaglia

  25. Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Ging-Yuek Hsiung

  26. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Ian MacKenzie

  27. Department of Neurology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kimiko Domoto-Reilly

  28. National Centralized Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Tatiana Foroud

  29. Department of Neurology, Harvard University and Frontotemporal Disorders Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Bradford C. Dickerson

Authors
  1. Elisabeth H. Thijssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renaud La Joie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amelia Strom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leonardo Iaccarino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Viktoriya Bourakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yann Cobigo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hilary Heuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Salvatore Spina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Lawren VandeVrede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Xiyun Chai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Nicholas K. Proctor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. David C. Airey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Sergey Shcherbinin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Cynthia Duggan Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. John R. Sims
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Henrik Zetterberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Kaj Blennow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Anna M. Karydas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Charlotte E. Teunissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Joel H. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Lea T. Grinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. William W. Seeley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Howie Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Bradley F. Boeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Bruce L. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Gil D. Rabinovici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Jeffrey L. Dage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Julio C. Rojas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Adam L. Boxer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Advancing Research and Treatment for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ARTFL) investigators

  • Leah Forsberg
  • , David S. Knopman
  • , Neill Graff-Radford
  • , Murray Grossman
  • , Edward H. Huey
  • , Chiadi Onyike
  • , Daniel Kaufer
  • , Erik Roberson
  • , Nupur Ghoshal
  • , Sandra Weintraub
  • , Brian Appleby
  • , Irene Litvan
  • , Diana Kerwin
  • , Mario Mendez
  • , Yvette Bordelon
  • , Giovanni Coppola
  • , Eliana Marisa Ramos
  • , M. Carmela Tartaglia
  • , Ging-Yuek Hsiung
  • , Ian MacKenzie
  • , Kimiko Domoto-Reilly
  • , Tatiana Foroud
  •  & Bradford C. Dickerson

Contributions

E.H.T. and J.C.R. had full access to the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. E.H.T., J.L.D., J.C.R. and A.L.B. were responsible for concept development and design. All authors contributed to acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data. E.H.T. drafted the manuscript. E.H.T., R.L.J., J.L.D., J.C.R. and A.L.B. critically revised the manuscript. E.H.T., R.L.J., P.W., D.C.A. and J.C.R. conducted statistical analyses. A.L.B., B.F.B., H.R., B.L.M., G.D.R., J.H.K. and J.L.D. obtained funding. J.L.D., J.C.R. and A.L.B. supervised the research.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam L. Boxer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

E.H.T, R.L.J., A.W., A.S., P.W., L.I., V.B., Y.C., H.H., S.S., A.M.K., C.E.T., J.H.K., W.W.S., H.R., B.F.B. and B.L.M. declare no conflict of interest. J.L.D., X.C., N.K.P., D.C.A., S.S., C.D.E. and J.R.S. are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. H.Z. has served on scientific advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics, Wave, Samumed and CogRx, has given lectures in symposia sponsored by Alzecure and Biogen and is a cofounder of Brain Biomarker Solutions in Gothenburg AB, a GU Ventures-based platform company at the University of Gothenburg. K.B. served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Alector, Biogen, CogRx, Eli Lilly, MagQu, Novartis and Roche Diagnostics and is a cofounder of Brain Biomarker Solutions in Gothenburg AB, a GU Venture-based platform company at the University of Gothenburg, all unrelated to the work presented in this paper. L.T.G. receives research support from Avid Radiopharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly. She has received consulting fees from the Simon Foundation and Cura Sen. She serves as Associate Editor for Frontiers in Aging Neurosciences, Frontiers in Dementia and the Journal of Alzheimer Disease. G.D.R. receives research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Alzheimer’s Association, American College of Radiology, Tau Research Consortium, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, GE Healthcare and Life Molecular Imaging. He has served as a consultant for Eisai, Merck and Axon Neurosciences. He received speaking honoraria from GE Healthcare. He serves as Associate Editor for JAMA Neurology. J.C.R. is a Site Principal Investigator for clinical trials supported by Eli Lilly and receives support from NIH. A.L.B. receives research support from NIH, the Tau Research Consortium, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration, Bluefield Project to Cure Frontotemporal Dementia, Corticobasal Degeneration Solutions, the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation and the Alzheimer’s Association. He has served as a consultant for Aeton, Abbvie, Alector, AGTC, Amgen, Arkuda, Arvinas, Asceneuron, Eisai, Ionis, Lundbeck, Novartis, Passage BIO, Sangamo, Samumed, Third Rock, Toyama and UCB, and received research support from Avid, Biogen, BMS, C2N, Cortice, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Forum, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and TauRx.

Additional information

Peer review information Brett Benedetti and Kate Gao were the primary editors on this article, and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Plasma pTau/NfL ratio per clinical diagnosis.

The ratio of pTau181/NfL was decreased in all FTLD diagnoses compared to controls, ADclin and MCI patients (n=212). **p<0.001 *p<0.05.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Plasma Aβ 42/40 ratio per clinical diagnosis and Amyloid PET and FTP-PET status.

a. There was no difference in plasma Aβ 42/40 ratio between the different phenotypes(n=178). b. The Aβ 42/40 ratio was decreased in Amyloid PET positive cases (n=135). c. The Aβ 42/40 ratio was decreased in FTP-PET positive cases (n=76).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Plasma NfL concentrations per autopsy determined Braak stage.

There was no difference in plasma NfL concentrations between the different Braak stages (n=69).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Plasma pTau181 and plasma NfL concentrations in mutation carriers.

a. Plasma pTau181 concentrations did not differ between mutation carriers (n=120). b. Plasma NfL concentrations were elevated in GRN and C9orf72 mutation carriers compared to the control group (p<0.0001) and MAPT mutation carriers (p<0.01) (n=59). **p<0.01.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Association between plasma pTau181 and CSF pTau181.

CSF pTau181 is associated with plasma pTau181 (β=0.51, p<0.0001; n=74), and is also associated within the AD/MCI (β=0.41, p=0.042; n=25), and the FTLD group (β=0.49, p<0.0001; n=29), but not in controls.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses of plasma pTau181 for Aβ-PET status in MCI patients and in controls.

a. Plasma pTau181 concentrations are increased in Aβ-PET positive MCI cases. pTau181 could differentiate between Aβ-PET positive and negative cases (visual read). AUC=0.944 (95% CI: 0.873-1.000, p<0.0001, n= 18 Aβ-PET positive, 21 negative), with a cut-off of 8.4 pg/mL (0.944 sensitivity and 0.857 specificity). b. Plasma pTau181 concentrations are increased in Aβ-PET positive NC cases. pTau181 could differentiate between Aβ-PET positive and negative cases (visual read). AUC=0.859 (95% CI: 0.732-0.986, p=0.001, n=11 Aβ-PET positive, 29 negative), with a cut-off of 7.1 pg/mL (0.818 sensitivity and 0.828 specificity). Notch displays the confidence interval around the median. ***p<0.0001 **p<0.01.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Plasma pTau181 and plasma NfL concentrations per FTP-PET estimated Braak stage.

a. Plasma pTau181 was increased in Braak stage 5-6, and Braak stage 3-4 compared to Braak stage 0 (n=97). b. There was no difference in plasma NfL concentrations between the different Braak stages (n=61). ***p<0.0001.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Results; Supplementary Tables 1–5; STARD 2015 Checklist

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thijssen, E.H., La Joie, R., Wolf, A. et al. Diagnostic value of plasma phosphorylated tau181 in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Nat Med 26, 387–397 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0762-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0762-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing