SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Saliva levels of Abeta1-42 as potential biomarker of Alzheimer's disease: a pilot study.

BMC Neurol · 2010-11-03

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-10-108PMID: 21047401

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundSimple, non-invasive tests for early detection of degenerative dementia by use of biomarkers are urgently required. However, up to the present, no validated extracerebral diagnostic markers for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) are available. The clinical diagnosis of probable AD is made with around 90% accuracy using modern clinical, neuropsychological and imaging methods. A biochemical marker that would support the clinical diagnosis and distinguish AD from other causes of dementia would therefore be of great value as a screening test. A total of 126 samples were obtained from subjects with AD, and age-sex-matched controls. Additionally, 51 Parkinson's disease (PD) patients were used as an example of another neurodegenerative disorder. We analyzed saliva and plasma levels of β amyloid (Aβ) using a highly sensitive ELISA kit.ResultsWe found a small but statistically significant increase in saliva Aβ42 levels in mild AD patients. In addition, there were not differences in saliva concentration of Aβ42 between patients with PD and healthy controls. Saliva Aβ40 expression was unchanged within all the studied sample. The association between saliva Aβ42 levels and AD was independent of established risk factors, including age or Apo E, but was dependent on sex and functional capacity.ConclusionsWe suggest that saliva Aβ42 levels could be considered a potential peripheral marker of AD and help discrimination from other types of neurodegenerative disorders. We propose a new and promising biomarker for early AD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.