SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Naturally Occurring Autoantibodies against Tau Protein Are Reduced in Parkinson's Disease Dementia.

PLoS One · 2016-11-01

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164953PMID: 27802290

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Background and objectiveAltered levels of naturally occurring autoantibodies (nAbs) against disease-associated neuronal proteins have been reported for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Recent histopathologic studies suggest a contribution of both Lewy body- and AD-related pathology to Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD). Therefore, we explored nAbs against alpha-synuclein (αS), tau and β-amyloid (Aβ) in PDD compared to cognitively normal PD patients.Materials and methodsWe established three different ELISAs to quantify the nAbs-tau, nAbs-αS, and nAbs-Aβ levels and avidity towards their specific antigen in serum samples of 18 non-demented (PDND) and 18 demented PD patients (PDD), which were taken from an ongoing multi-center cohort study (DEMPARK/LANDSCAPE).ResultsPDD patients had significantly decreased nAbs-tau serum levels compared to PDND patients (p = 0.007), whereas the serum titers of nAbs-αS and nAbs-Aβ were unchanged. For all three nAbs, no significant differences in avidity were found between PDD and PDND cohorts. However, within both patient groups, nAbs-tau showed lowest avidity to their antigen, followed by nAbs-αS, and nAbs-Aβ. Though, due to a high interassay coefficient of variability and the exclusion of many samples below the limit of detection, conclusions for nAbs-Aβ are only conditionally possible.ConclusionWe detected a significantly decreased nAbs-tau serum level in PDD patients, indicating a potential linkage between nAbs-tau serum titer and cognitive deficits in PD. Thus, further investigation in larger samples is justified to confirm our findings.

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.