1
|
Abstract
Oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs) and mature oligodendrocytes (OLs) can be generated using human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) and human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). By manipulating culture conditions, pluripotent cell types are serially guided through intermediary cell types, developing first into neural progenitor cells (NPCs) then OPCs before maturing as CNS-specific OLs. This procedure is conducted under adherent, feeder-free conditions to derive mature OLs in as few as 28 days.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Mattingly
- Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Sundari Chetty
- Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
- Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Carlyle BC, Kitchen RR, Mattingly Z, Celia AM, Trombetta BA, Das S, Hyman BT, Kivisäkk P, Arnold SE. Technical Performance Evaluation of Olink Proximity Extension Assay for Blood-Based Biomarker Discovery in Longitudinal Studies of Alzheimer's Disease. Front Neurol 2022; 13:889647. [PMID: 35734478 PMCID: PMC9207419 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.889647] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The core Alzheimer's disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers; amyloid-β (Aß), total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181), are strong indicators of the presence of AD pathology, but do not correlate well with disease progression, and can be difficult to implement in longitudinal studies where repeat biofluid sampling is required. As a result, blood-based biomarkers are increasingly being sought as alternatives. In this study, we aimed to evaluate a promising blood biomarker discovery technology, Olink Proximity Extension Assays for technical reproducibility characteristics in order to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of using this technology in biomarker discovery in AD. We evaluated the performance of five Olink Proteomic multiplex proximity extension assays (PEA) in plasma samples. Three technical control samples included on each plate allowed calculation of technical variability. Biotemporal stability was measured in three sequential annual samples from 54 individuals with and without AD. Coefficients of variation (CVs), analysis of variance (ANOVA), and variance component analyses were used to quantify technical and individual variation over time. We show that overall, Olink assays are technically robust, with the largest experimental variation stemming from biological differences between individuals for most analytes. As a powerful illustration of one of the potential pitfalls of using a multi-plexed technology for discovery, we performed power calculations using the baseline samples to demonstrate the size of study required to overcome the need for multiple test correction with this technology. We show that the power of moderate effect size proteins was strongly reduced, and as a result investigators should strongly consider pooling resources to perform larger studies using this multiplexed technique where possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Becky C. Carlyle
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Robert R. Kitchen
- Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Zoe Mattingly
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Amanda M. Celia
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Bianca A. Trombetta
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Sudeshna Das
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Bradley T. Hyman
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Pia Kivisäkk
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Steven E. Arnold
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
- *Correspondence: Steven E. Arnold
| |
Collapse
|