MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390198999 · doi:10.1002/alz.072427

Developing a mass spectrometric assay to measure granulin peptides in CSF for progranulin‐associated frontotemporal dementia

2023· article· en· W4390198999 on OpenAlexaff
Imogen J. Swift, Sophia Weiner, Mathias Sauer, Johanna Nilsson, John C. van Swieten, Lize C. Jiskoot, Harro Seelaar, Fermín Moreno, Raquel Sánchez‐Valle, Robert Laforce, Caroline Graff, Mario Masellis, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, James B. Rowe, Barbara Borroni, Elizabeth Finger, Matthis Synofzik, Daniela Galimberti, Rik Vandenberghe, Alexandre de Mendonça, Christopher Butler, Alexander Gerhard, Simon Ducharme, Isabelle Le Ber, Pietro Tiraboschi, Isabel Santana, Florence Pasquier, Johannes Levin, Markus Otto, Sandro Sorbi, Ann Brinkmalm, Henrik Zetterberg, Jonathan D. Rohrer, Aitana Sogorb‐Esteve, Johan Gobom

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaTandem mass tagBiologyComputational biologyProteomicsQuantitative proteomicsBiochemistryGeneDementiaMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Pathogenic mutations in the progranulin gene (GRN) are a key cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), inducing a reduced biofluid concentration of the progranulin protein (PGRN). PGRN is a cysteine‐rich glycoprotein with essential roles in inflammation and lysosomal function, made up of 7 granulin peptides and 1 paragranulin. The role of these peptides is unclear, but existing data suggests they may have contradictory roles to full‐length PGRN. With the development of numerous clinical trials aiming to treat progranulin‐associated FTD (FTD‐GRN) by increasing full‐length PGRN, it is important to establish effective outcome measures to assess treatment success and further our understanding of PGRN’s biology. Here, we aimed to develop an assay to quantify granulin peptides in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and determine whether they contribute to the pathology of FTD‐GRN. Method Based on previously published explorative data of endogenous CSF peptides, 12 peptides spanning the progranulin sequence, were selected for the development of targeted assays using a quadrupole Orbitrap hybrid mass spectrometer (Fusion Tribrid, Thermo). An analytical protocol was optimised involving reduction, alkylation, molecular weight cut‐off filtration and solid phase extraction, and using isotope labelled heavy standards for quantification. Additionally, tandem mass tag (TMT) proteomics was used to analyse tryptic peptides spanning granulin and paragranulin sequence regions in 248 CSF samples from the Genetic FTD initiative (GENFI) including 56 GRN mutation carriers and 76 mutation‐negative controls. Result Preliminary results reveal the presence of three endogenous peptides in CSF, which based on sequence matching, likely represent granulin 6 and 7 alongside the paragranulin peptide. TMT results showed significantly reduced relative peptide intensity across the granulin regions in GRN carriers CSF compared to controls (p<0.0001), but no significant difference in the paragranulin region (p>0.33). Conclusion These findings indicate that two granulins and paragranulin are quantifiable in CSF and may have key roles in progranulin biology and potentially FTD pathology. This is supported by TMT results of differential CSF paragranulin levels compared to granulins. Continuing work will quantify CSF granulin concentrations in the GENFI cohort to assess whether these peptides have key roles in FTD‐GRN’s underlying biology and as potential outcome measures in trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research→French-language works237,207→