Dataset Information

A Critical Evaluation of Wet Biomarkers for Huntington's Disease: Current Status and Ways Forward.

ABSTRACT: There is an unmet clinical need for objective biomarkers to monitor disease progression and treatment response in Huntington's disease (HD). The aim of this review is, therefore, to provide practical advice for biomarker discovery and to summarise studies on biofluid markers for HD. A PubMed search was performed to review literature with regard to candidate saliva, urine, blood and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for HD. Information has been organised into tables to allow a pragmatic approach to the discussion of the evidence and generation of practical recommendations for future studies. Many of the markers published converge on metabolic and inflammatory pathways, although changes in other analytes representing antioxidant and growth factor pathways have also been found. The most promising markers reflect neuronal and glial degeneration, particularly neurofilament light chain. International collaboration to standardise assays and study protocols, as well as to recruit sufficiently large cohorts, will facilitate future biomarker discovery and development.

SUBMITTER: Silajdzic E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6004896 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Critical Evaluation of Wet Biomarkers for Huntington's Disease: Current Status and Ways Forward.

Silajdžić Edina E Björkqvist Maria M

Journal of Huntington's disease 20180101 2

There is an unmet clinical need for objective biomarkers to monitor disease progression and treatment response in Huntington's disease (HD). The aim of this review is, therefore, to provide practical advice for biomarker discovery and to summarise studies on biofluid markers for HD. A PubMed search was performed to review literature with regard to candidate saliva, urine, blood and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for HD. Information has been organised into tables to allow a pragmatic approach to ...[more]

PMID: 29614689

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small (?22-nt), stable RNAs that critically modulate post-transcriptional gene regulation. MicroRNAs can be found in the blood as components of serum, plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Many microRNAs have been reported to be specific biomarkers in a variety of non-neoplastic diseases. To date, no one has globally evaluated these proposed clinical biomarkers for general quality or disease specificity. We hypothesized that the cellular source of circulating microRNAs should correlate with cells involved in specific non-neoplastic disease processes. Appropriate cell expression data would inform on the quality and usefulness of each microRNA as a biomarker for specific diseases. We further hypothesized a useful clinical microRNA biomarker would have specificity to a single disease.Methods and findingsWe identified 416 microRNA biomarkers, of which 192 were unique, in 104 publications covering 57 diseases. One hundred and thirty-nine microRNAs (33%) represented biologically plausible biomarkers, corresponding to non-ubiquitous microRNAs expressed in disease-appropriate cell types. However, at a global level, many of these microRNAs were reported as "specific" biomarkers for two or more unrelated diseases with 6 microRNAs (miR-21, miR-16, miR-146a, miR-155, miR-126 and miR-223) being reported as biomarkers for 9 or more distinct diseases. Other biomarkers corresponded to common patterns of cellular injury, such as the liver-specific microRNA, miR-122, which was elevated in a disparate set of diseases that injure the liver primarily or secondarily including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, sepsis, and myocardial infarction.ConclusionsOnly a subset of reported blood-based microRNA biomarkers have specificity for a particular disease. The remainder of the reported non-neoplastic biomarkers are either biologically implausible, non-specific, or uninterpretable due to limitations of our current understanding of microRNA expression.

Project description:1. The prevalence of phylogenetic niche conservatism (PNC) in nature is still a conflicting issue. Disagreement arises from confusion over its precise definition and the variety of approaches to measure its prevalence. Recent work highlighted that common measures of PNC strongly depend on the assumptions of the underlying model of niche evolution. However, this warning has not been well recognized in the applied literature and questionable approaches are still frequently applied. 2. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the assumptions underlying commonly applied simple measures of PNC. We used a series of simulations to illustrate how misleading results can be if assumptions of niche evolution are violated, that the violation of assumptions is a common phenomenon and that testing assumptions requires in-depth pre-test. 3. We conclude that the seemingly simple measures of PNC, such as phylogenetic sign6al and evolutionary rate, are not so easy to apply if one accounts for the necessity to test model assumptions. In addition, these measures can be difficult to interpret. The common assumption that strong phylogenetic signal indicates PNC will be often invalid. In addition, the interpretation of some measures, e.g. the conclusion that evolutionary rate is slow enough to indicate PNC, requires a comparison with another clade, another trait or well-developed null model assumptions and thus additional data. 4. We suggest that studies investigating PNC should always compare alternative evolutionary models, and that model comparisons should in particular include flexible niche evolution models such as multiple-optima OU models, although these are computational intensive. These models are directly inherited from the concept of macro-evolutionary adaptive landscape, and can indicate PNC either by relative few peak shifts or by narrow peaks in the adaptive landscape. A test of PNC thus requires comparing these parameters of the macroevolutionary landscape between clades or time periods. 5. The general prevalence of PNC in nature should be evaluated only based on studies keeping up to the high standards of communicating the used definition of PNC, testing the assumptions made in the modelling approaches and including newly developed models in a model comparison approach.

Project description:BackgroundDespite their importance, the number of outcomes research studies conducted in India are lesser than other countries. Information about the distribution of existing outcomes research resources and relevant expertise can benefit researchers and research groups interested in conducting outcomes research studies and policy makers interested in funding outcomes research studies in India. We have reviewed the literature to identify and map resources described in outcomes research studies conducted in India.MethodsWe reviewed the following online biomedical databases: Pubmed, SCIRUS, CINAHL, and Google scholar and selected articles that met the following criteria: published in English, conducted on Indian population, providing information about outcomes research resources (databases/registries/electronic medical records/electronic healthcare records/hospital information systems) in India and articles describing outcomes research studies or epidemiological studies based on outcomes research resources. After shortlisting articles, we abstracted data into three datasets viz. 1. Resource dataset, 2. Bibliometric dataset and 3. Researcher dataset and carried out descriptive analysis.ResultsOf the 126 articles retrieved, 119 articles were selected for inclusion in the study. The tally increased to 133 articles after a secondary search. Based on the information available in the articles, we identified a total of 91 unique research resources. We observed that most of the resources were Registries (62/91) and Databases ( 23/91) and were primarily located in Maharashtra (19/91) followed by Tamil Nadu (11/91), Chandigarh (8/91) and Kerala (7/91) States. These resources primarily collected data on Cancer (44/91), Stroke (5/91) and Diabetes (4/91). Most of these resources were Institutional (38/91) and Regional resources (35/91) located in Government owned and managed Academic Institutes/Hospitals (57/91) or Privately owned and managed non - Academic Institutes/Hospitals (14/91). Data from the Population based Cancer Registry, Mumbai was used in 41 peer reviewed publications followed by Population based Cancer Registry, Chennai (17) and Rural Cancer Registry Barshi (14). Most of the articles were published in International journals (139/193) that had an impact factor of 0-1.99 (43/91) and received an average of 0-20 citations (55/91). We identified 193 researchers who are mainly located in Maharashtra (37/193) and Tamil Nadu (24/193) states and Southern (76/193) and Western zones (47/193). They were mainly affiliated to Government owned & managed Academic Institutes /Hospitals (96/193) or privately owned and managed Academic Institutes/ Hospitals (35/193).ConclusionsGiven the importance of Outcomes research, relevant resources should be supported and encouraged which would help in the generation of important healthcare data that can guide health and research policy. Clarity about the distribution of outcomes research resources can facilitate future resource and funding allocation decisions for policy makers as well as help them measure research performance over time.

Dataset Information

A Critical Evaluation of Wet Biomarkers for Huntington's Disease: Current Status and Ways Forward.

Publications

A Critical Evaluation of Wet Biomarkers for Huntington's Disease: Current Status and Ways Forward.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets