1
|
Gordón Pidal JM, Moreno-Guzmán M, Montero-Calle A, Valverde A, Pingarrón JM, Campuzano S, Calero M, Barderas R, López MÁ, Escarpa A. Micromotor-based electrochemical immunoassays for reliable determination of amyloid-β (1-42) in Alzheimer's diagnosed clinical samples. Biosens Bioelectron 2024; 249:115988. [PMID: 38194814 DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115988] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Revised: 12/22/2023] [Accepted: 12/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/11/2024]
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD), in addition to being the most common cause of dementia, is very difficult to diagnose, with the 42-amino acid form of Aβ (Aβ-42) being one of the main biomarkers used for this purpose. Despite the enormous efforts made in recent years, the technologies available to determine Aβ-42 in human samples require sophisticated instrumentation, present high complexity, are sample and time-consuming, and are costly, highlighting the urgent need not only to develop new tools to overcome these limitations but to provide an early detection and treatment window for AD, which is a top-challenge. In recent years, micromotor (MM) technology has proven to add a new dimension to clinical biosensing, enabling ultrasensitive detections in short times and microscale environments. To this end, here an electrochemical immunoassay based on polypyrrole (PPy)/nickel (Ni)/platinum nanoparticles (PtNPs) MM is proposed in a pioneering manner for the determination of Aβ-42 in left prefrontal cortex brain tissue, cerebrospinal fluid, and plasma samples from patients with AD. MM combines the high binding capacity of their immunorecognition external layer with self-propulsion through the catalytic generation of oxygen bubbles in the internal layer due to decomposition of hydrogen peroxide as fuel, allowing rapid bio-detection (15 min) of Aβ-42 with excellent selectivity and sensitivity (LOD = 0.06 ng/mL). The application of this disruptive technology to the analysis of just 25 μL of the three types of clinical samples provides values concordant with the clinical values reported, thus confirming the potential of the MM approach to assist in the reliable, simple, fast, and affordable diagnosis of AD by determining Aβ-42.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- José M Gordón Pidal
- Department of Analytical Chemistry, Physical Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Sciences, University of Alcalá, Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona, Km. 33.600, Alcalá de Henares, 28802, Madrid, Spain
| | - María Moreno-Guzmán
- Department of Chemistry in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ana Montero-Calle
- Chronic Disease Programme, UFIEC, Carlos III Health Institute, Majadahonda, Madrid, 28220, Spain
| | - Alejandro Valverde
- Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Pza. de las Ciencias 2, Madrid, 28040, Spain
| | - José M Pingarrón
- Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Pza. de las Ciencias 2, Madrid, 28040, Spain
| | - Susana Campuzano
- Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Pza. de las Ciencias 2, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
| | - Miguel Calero
- Chronic Disease Programme, UFIEC, Carlos III Health Institute, Majadahonda, Madrid, 28220, Spain
| | - Rodrigo Barderas
- Chronic Disease Programme, UFIEC, Carlos III Health Institute, Majadahonda, Madrid, 28220, Spain.
| | - Miguel Ángel López
- Department of Analytical Chemistry, Physical Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Sciences, University of Alcalá, Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona, Km. 33.600, Alcalá de Henares, 28802, Madrid, Spain; Chemical Research Institute "Andrés M. Del Rio", University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alberto Escarpa
- Department of Analytical Chemistry, Physical Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Sciences, University of Alcalá, Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona, Km. 33.600, Alcalá de Henares, 28802, Madrid, Spain; Chemical Research Institute "Andrés M. Del Rio", University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Morris JC, Blennow K, Froelich L, Nordberg A, Soininen H, Waldemar G, Wahlund LO, Dubois B. Harmonized diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: recommendations. J Intern Med 2014; 275:204-13. [PMID: 24605805 DOI: 10.1111/joim.12199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 88] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Two major sets of criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) recently have been published, one from an International Working Group (IWG) and the other from working groups convened by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer's Association (AA) in the United States. These criteria both aim to support a clinical diagnosis with in vivo evidence of AD pathology, using imaging methods and detection of biofluid biomarkers, and emphasize an aetiological diagnosis even in the prodromal stages of the disorder. Nonetheless, there are substantial differences in these two sets of criteria. METHODS An international group of investigators with experience in the clinical diagnosis of AD met at the Key Symposium in Stockholm, Sweden on 6 & 7 December 2012, to develop recommendations to harmonize these criteria. The group was led by individuals who were integral to the development of both the IWG and the NIA-AA criteria. The similarities and differences between the two sets of criteria were identified and open discussion focused on ways to resolve the differences and thus yield a harmonized set of criteria. RESULTS Based on both published evidence as well as the group's collective clinical experience, the group was tasked with achieving consensus, if not unanimity, as it developed recommendations for harmonized clinical diagnostic criteria for AD. CONCLUSION The recommendations are to: (i) define AD as a brain disorder, regardless of clinical status; (ii) refer to the clinically expressed disorder, including its prodromal stages, as symptomatic AD; (iii) after the successful completion of standardization efforts, consider incorporating biomarkers into diagnostic algorithms for AD; and (iv) allow nonamnestic, atypical presentations to be included as symptomatic AD, especially when there is supportive biomarker evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C Morris
- Department of Neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|