Analytical validation of the BD-tau assay reveals robust performance in traumatic brain injury detection and neurodegeneration.
Background: Brain-derived tau (BD-tau) is a promising blood-based biomarker for neurodegeneration/brain injury in neurodegenerative and acute neurological disorders. However, widespread use is hampered by lack of commercial assays. We evaluated the analytical and clinical validity of the first commercial research use only BD-tau assay — the Quanterix® BD-tau Advantage PLUS. Methods: Using the Simoa® HD-X analyzer, we evaluated the assay's robustness, precision, dilution linearity, spike recovery, specificity, and limits of detection. Matrix effect was examined by comparing BD-tau levels in n=48 plasma/serum and n=20 plasma/CSF sample pairs. Clinical performance was examined in a traumatic brain injury (TBI) cohort. Results: Twenty repeated measurements of three plasma samples gave intra- and inter-plate CVs ≤7.24%. A median drift of 8.00% (decrease) was observed from the start to the end of a full plate run. Analytically, BD-tau concentrations decreased linearly up to 16-fold dilution, spike recovery was 86-96%, and signals were highly specific to the CNS-abundant 2N4R but not the peripherally-enriched "big-tau" isoform. Moreover, signals were stable for up to four freeze/thaw cycles. Furthermore, significant correlations were observed in the plasma/serum (r=0.8392; p<0.0001) and plasma/CSF (r=0.6150; p=0.0039) pairs. Finally, CSF and plasma BD-tau was elevated in severe-acute TBI vs. chronic-mixed TBI and unaffected controls (p<0.0001; AUC=0.9986, and p<0.0001; AUC=1.000, respectively). In severe-acute TBI patients, plasma BD-tau was correlated with plasma p-tau217 (r=0.5761, p=0.0005), NfL (r=0.8910, p=0.0001), and GFAP (r=0.5424, p=0.0011). CSF BD-tau and CSF p-tau217 were strongly correlated (r=0.9667, p=0.0002). Conclusion: BD-tau Advantage PLUS produces robust brain-derived tau-specific readings that demonstrate utility in detecting severe-acute TBI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nafash et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: