Neuron-specific enolase levels immediately following cardiovascular surgery is modulated by hemolysis due to cardiopulmonary bypass, making it unsuitable as a brain damage biomarker

Neuron-Specific Enolase-What Are We Measuring?

Since the discovery of the neuron-specific protein by Moore and McGregor in 1965, tens of thousands of studies have investigated the basic and applied significance of neuron-specific enolase (NSE). This promising biomarker, according to many researchers, has not found widespread use in clinical practice, particularly in acute cerebrovascular accidents. Moreover, the several studies refuting the usefulness of serum NSE measurement in critically ill patients leads us to consider the reasons for such contradictory conclusions. In this article, we have analyzed the main directions in the study of NSE and expressed our perspective on the reasons for the contradictory results and the difficulties in implementing the results of these studies in clinical practice. In our opinion, the method of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) used in the majority of the studies is inappropriate for the evaluation of NSE as a marker of central nervous system damage, because it does not allow for the differentiation of heterodimers of enolases and the assessment of the enzymatic activity of this group of enzymatic proteins. Therefore, the methodological approach for the evaluation of NSE (γγ-enolase) as a biomarker needs to be elaborated and improved. Furthermore, the specificity of the applied research methods and the appropriateness of the continued use of the term "neuron-specific enolase" must be addressed.

Performance of biomarkers NF-L, NSE, Tau and GFAP in blood and cerebrospinal fluid in rat for the detection of nervous system injury

Background

Target organ toxicity is often a reason for attritions in nonclinical and clinical drug development. Leveraging emerging safety biomarkers in nonclinical studies provides an opportunity to monitor such toxicities early and efficiently, potentially translating to early clinical trials. As a part of the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), two projects have focused on evaluating safety biomarkers of nervous system (NS) toxicity: Translational Safety Biomarker Pipeline (TransBioLine) and Neurotoxicity De-Risking in Preclinical Drug Discovery (NeuroDeRisk).

Methods

Performance of fluid-based NS injury biomarker candidates neurofilament light chain (NF-L), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neuron specific enolase (NSE) and total Tau in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was evaluated in 15 rat in vivo studies. Model nervous system toxicants as well as other compounds were used to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Histopathologic assessments of nervous tissues and behavioral observations were conducted to detect and characterize NS injuries. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare the relative performance of the biomarkers in their ability to detect NS injury.

Results

NF-L was the best performer in detecting both peripheral nervous system (PNS) and CNS injury in plasma, (AUC of 0.97-0.99; respectively). In CSF, Tau correlated the best with CNS (AUC 0.97), but not PNS injury. NSE and GFAP were suitable for monitoring CNS injury, but with lesser sensitivity. In summary, NF-L is a sensitive and specific biomarker in rats for detecting compound-induced central and peripheral NS injuries. While NF-L measurement alone cannot inform the site of the injury, addition of biomarkers like Tau and NSE and analysis in both blood and CSF can provide additional information about the origin of the NS injury.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate the utility of emerging safety biomarkers of drug-induced NS injury in rats and provide additional supporting evidence for biomarker translation across species and potential use in clinical settings to monitor drug-induced NS injury in patients.