SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Untargeted Lipidomic Reveals Potential Biomarkers in Plasma Samples for the Discrimination of Patients Affected by Parkinson's Disease.

Molecules · 2025-02-12

DOI: 10.3390/molecules30040850PMID: 40005161

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

Nowadays, the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) remains essentially clinical, based on the subjective observations of clinicians. In addition, misdiagnosis with other neuro disorders, such as Alzheimer's (AD), can occur. Herein, an untargeted lipidomic analysis of 75 plasma samples was performed to identify lipid species capable of discriminating between these two neuro groups. Therefore, PLS-DA and OPLS-DA analysis revealed significant differences in patient profiles in the sphingolipid and glycerophospholipid categories. As a result, a putative lipid biomarker panel was developed, which included HexCer (40:1; O2) and PC (O-32:0), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) > 80, respectively. This panel was effective in discriminating between diseased and healthy subjects, but most importantly, it could discriminate between two neurodegenerative disorders that can present similar symptoms, namely PD and AD. Together, these findings suggest that the dysregulated metabolism of lipids plays a critical role in AD and PD pathology and may represent a valuable clinical tool for their diagnosis. Thus, further targeted studies are encouraged to better understand the underlying mechanisms of PD and confirm the diagnostic potency of the identified lipid metabolites.

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.