Abstract
Background Increased levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in blood have been identified as a valuable biomarker for some neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease and multiple sclerosis. However, most blood GFAP quantifications so far were performed using the same bead-based assay, and to date a routine clinical application is lacking.
Methods In this study, we validated a novel second-generation (2nd gen) Ella assay to quantify serum GFAP. Furthermore, we compared its performance with a bead-based single molecule array (Simoa) and a homemade blood GFAP assay in a clinical cohort of neurological diseases, including 210 patients.
Results Validation experiments resulted in an intra-assay variation of 10%, an inter-assay of 12%, a limit of detection of 0.9 pg/mL, a lower limit of quantification of 2.8_pg/mL, and less than 20% variation in serum samples exposed to up to five freeze-thaw cycles, 120_hours at 4 °C and room temperature. Measurement of the clinical cohort using all assays revealed the same pattern of GFAP distribution in the different diagnostic groups. Moreover, we observed a strong correlation between the 2nd gen Ella and Simoa (r=0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 - 0.93), p<0.0001) and the homemade immunoassay (r=0.77 (95% CI: 0.70 - 0.82), p<0.0001).
Conclusions Our results demonstrate a high reliability, precision and reproducibility of the 2nd gen Ella assay. Although a higher assay sensitivity for Simoa was observed, the new microfluidic assay might have the potential to be used for GFAP analysis in daily clinical workups due to its robustness and ease of use.
What is already known on this topic
Blood glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels are an emerging biomarker for diagnosing, prognosis and treatment monitoring for AD, MS and other neurological disorders. However, so far, the application in clinical routine remains a challenge.
What this study adds
This study validated a novel, easy-to-use second-generation microfluidic assay for the quantitative measurement of blood GFAP. Moreover, its performance was compared to two other GFAP immunoassays, including single molecule array.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy
This study proved the reliability, precision and reproducibility of the novel second-generation microfluidic assay, which might be more easily implemented in daily clinical routine analyses and therefore facilitates the application of GFAP as a biomarker for neurological diseases.
Competing Interest Statement
NGdSJ is a part-time employer at Proteintech. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the EU Joint Programme-Neurodegenerative Diseases networks Genfi-Prox (01ED2008A), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FTLDc 01GI1007A), the EU Moodmarker programme (01EW2008), the German Research Foundation/DFG (SFB1279), the foundation of the state Baden-Wuerttemberg (D.3830), Boehringer Ingelheim Ulm University BioCenter (D.5009).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics Committee of the University of Ulm gave ethical approval for this work.(approval number: 20/10)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
