Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Saliva is a convenient and accessible biofluid that has potential as a future diagnostic tool for Parkinson's disease. Candidate diagnostic tests for Parkinson's disease to date have predominantly focused on measurements of α-synuclein in CSF, but there is a need for accurate tests utilizing more easily accessible sample types. Prior studies utilizing saliva have used bulk measurements of salivary α-synuclein to provide diagnostic insight. Aggregate structure may influence the contribution of α-synuclein to disease pathology. Single-molecule approaches can characterize the structure of individual aggregates present in the biofluid and may, therefore, provide greater insight than bulk measurements. We have employed an antibody-based single-molecule pulldown assay to quantify salivary α-synuclein and amyloid-β peptide aggregate numbers and subsequently super-resolved captured aggregates using direct Stochastic Optical Reconstruction Microscopy to describe their morphological features. We show that the salivary α-synuclein aggregate/amyloid-β aggregate ratio is increased almost 2-fold in patients with Parkinson's disease (n = 20) compared with controls (n = 20, P P n = 17) and controls (n = 18) with a high degree of accuracy (area under the curve = 0.87, P < 0.001) and a larger dynamic range. We, therefore, demonstrate for the first time the application of highly sensitive single-molecule imaging techniques to saliva. In addition, we show that aggregates present within saliva retain relevant structural information, further expanding the potential utility of saliva-based diagnostic methods.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.