TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantification of Tau-A in serum after brain injury

T2 - a comparison of two analytical platforms, ELISA and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay

AU - Tzara, Ourania

AU - Amalie Simonsen, Sofie

AU - West, Anders Sode

AU - Asser Karsdal, Morten

AU - Iversen, Helle Klingenberg

AU - Henriksen, Kim

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Nordic Bioscience A/S. Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Background: Previous studies have indicated the utility of the ADAM10-generated fragment of tau, Tau-A, as marker of neuronal damage. However, the sensitivity of the ELISA-based system was limited. Objectives: We utilized the extensive dynamic range of electrochemiluminescence compared to colorimetric assessment to improve the sensitivity of the Tau-A assay and investigate Tau-A levels after brain injury. Methods: We converted the Tau-A competitive ELISA to a competitive electrochemiluminescence-based immunoassay, Tau-A ECLIA, and compared the methods by measuring serum samples in a TBI (n = 40) and a stroke cohort (n = 64). Results: The Tau-A ECLIA was technically robust. Only 1% of the samples was below the detection limit in the ECLIA compared to 10.6% in the ELISA . Tau-A measured in both assays could discriminate between patients with a TBI and non-trauma controls (ELISA: p = 0.0005, ECLIA: p = 0.0002). The increased dynamic range of the Tau-A ECLIA also allowed discrimination between healthy controls from patients with hemorrhagic (p = 0.0172) and severe ischemic stroke (p = 0.0118) respectively, as well as patients with mild ischemic stroke from severe (p = 0.0445). Conclusions: The Tau-A ECLIA was characterized by dynamic range compared to the ELISA, which facilitated a better separation between the patient groups. Tau-A warrants further investigation as a neuronal injury associated marker.

AB - Background: Previous studies have indicated the utility of the ADAM10-generated fragment of tau, Tau-A, as marker of neuronal damage. However, the sensitivity of the ELISA-based system was limited. Objectives: We utilized the extensive dynamic range of electrochemiluminescence compared to colorimetric assessment to improve the sensitivity of the Tau-A assay and investigate Tau-A levels after brain injury. Methods: We converted the Tau-A competitive ELISA to a competitive electrochemiluminescence-based immunoassay, Tau-A ECLIA, and compared the methods by measuring serum samples in a TBI (n = 40) and a stroke cohort (n = 64). Results: The Tau-A ECLIA was technically robust. Only 1% of the samples was below the detection limit in the ECLIA compared to 10.6% in the ELISA . Tau-A measured in both assays could discriminate between patients with a TBI and non-trauma controls (ELISA: p = 0.0005, ECLIA: p = 0.0002). The increased dynamic range of the Tau-A ECLIA also allowed discrimination between healthy controls from patients with hemorrhagic (p = 0.0172) and severe ischemic stroke (p = 0.0118) respectively, as well as patients with mild ischemic stroke from severe (p = 0.0445). Conclusions: The Tau-A ECLIA was characterized by dynamic range compared to the ELISA, which facilitated a better separation between the patient groups. Tau-A warrants further investigation as a neuronal injury associated marker.

KW - electrochemiluminescence immunoassay

KW - serum biomarker

KW - stroke

KW - Tau-A fragment

KW - traumatic brain injury

U2 - 10.1080/02699052.2022.2048692

DO - 10.1080/02699052.2022.2048692

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 35253561

AN - SCOPUS:85126022319

VL - 36

SP - 792

EP - 799

JO - Brain Injury

JF - Brain Injury

SN - 0269-9052

IS - 6

ER -