Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38325331›Full record

ArticleBrain : a journal of neurology2024

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker panel for synaptic dysfunction in a broad spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases.

Johanna Nilsson, Alexa Pichet Binette, Sebastian Palmqvist, Wagner S Brum, Shorena Janelidze, Nicholas J Ashton, Nicola Spotorno, Erik Stomrud, Johan Gobom, Henrik Zetterberg and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Genetic and molecular evidence linking CTSH to Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Johanna NilssonDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, S-431 80 Mölndal, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2856-6060
Alexa Pichet BinetteClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 211 46 Malmö, Sweden.
Sebastian PalmqvistClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 211 46 Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9267-1930
Wagner S BrumDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, S-431 80 Mölndal, Sweden.
Shorena JanelidzeClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 211 46 Malmö, Sweden.
Nicholas J AshtonDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, S-431 80 Mölndal, Sweden.
Nicola SpotornoClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 211 46 Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5404-8788
Erik StomrudClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 211 46 Malmö, Sweden.
Johan GobomDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, S-431 80 Mölndal, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6193-6193
Henrik ZetterbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, S-431 80 Mölndal, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3930-4354
Ann BrinkmalmDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, S-431 80 Mölndal, Sweden.
Kaj BlennowDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, S-431 80 Mölndal, Sweden.
Oskar HanssonClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, 211 46 Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8467-7286

Funding

Alzheimer Drug Discovery FoundationAlzheimerfonden AF-980907Alzheimer's AssociationEivind och Elsa K:son Sylvan StiftelseErling-Persson Family FoundationGE HealthcareHjärnfondenHorizon 2020Joint Programme-Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSkåne University Hospital 2020-O000028Stiftelsen för Gamla TjänarinnorSwedish Brain Foundation FO2022-0204Swedish Federal GovernmentSwedish GovernmentSwedish Research Council 2022-01018University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synaptic dysfunction and degeneration is likely the key pathophysiology for the progression of cognitive decline in various dementia disorders. Synaptic status can be monitored by measuring synaptic proteins in CSF. In this study, both known and new synaptic proteins were investigated and compared as potential biomarkers of synaptic dysfunction, particularly in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Seventeen synaptic proteins were quantified in CSF using two different targeted mass spectrometry assays in the prospective Swedish BioFINDER-2 study. The study included 958 individuals, characterized as having mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 205), AD dementia (n = 149) and a spectrum of other neurodegenerative diseases (n = 171), in addition to cognitively unimpaired individuals (CU, n = 443). Synaptic protein levels were compared between diagnostic groups and their associations with cognitive decline and key neuroimaging measures (amyloid-β-PET, tau-PET and cortical thickness) were assessed. Among the 17 synaptic proteins examined, 14 were specifically elevated in the AD continuum. SNAP-25, 14-3-3 zeta/delta, β-synuclein, and neurogranin exhibited the highest discriminatory accuracy in differentiating AD dementia from controls (areas under the curve = 0.81-0.93). SNAP-25 and 14-3-3 zeta/delta also had the strongest associations with tau-PET, amyloid-β-PET and cortical thickness at baseline and were associated with longitudinal changes in these imaging biomarkers [β(standard error, SE) = -0.056(0.0006) to 0.058(0.005), P < 0.0001]. SNAP-25 was the strongest predictor of progression to AD dementia in non-demented individuals (hazard ratio = 2.11). In contrast, neuronal pentraxins were decreased in all neurodegenerative diseases (except for Parkinson's disease), and NPTX2 showed the strongest associations with subsequent cognitive decline [longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examination: β(SE) = 0.57(0.1), P ≤ 0.0001; and mPACC: β(SE) = 0.095(0.024), P ≤ 0.001] across the AD continuum. Interestingly, utilizing a ratio of the proteins that displayed higher levels in AD, such as SNAP-25 or 14-3-3 zeta/delta, over NPTX2 improved the biomarkers' associations with cognitive decline and brain atrophy. We found 14-3-3 zeta/delta and SNAP-25 to be especially promising as synaptic biomarkers of pathophysiological changes in AD. Neuronal pentraxins were identified as general indicators of neurodegeneration and associated with cognitive decline across various neurodegenerative dementias. Cognitive decline and brain atrophy were best predicted by ratios of SNAP-25/NPTX2 and 14-3-3 zeta/delta/NPTX2.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBiomarkersCognitive DysfunctionNeurodegenerative DiseasesSynapsesAgedAged, 80 and overAmyloid beta-PeptidesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeurograninPositron-Emission TomographyProspective Studiestau ProteinsAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersNeurogranintau Proteinsbiomarkerscognitionmass spectrometrysynaptic pathology

Identifiers

PMID38325331
PMCPMC11224614

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.