A comparative analysis reveals serum's reliability for determining ApoE4 phenotype in Alzheimer’s disease, implying potential for broader sample use.
Objectives Since apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) is associated with therapy-related adverse effects of anti-amyloid-β monoclonal antibodies in Alzheimer’s disease, such as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, methods for determining the ApoE4 status are needed. The Lumipulse ® ApoE4 and Pan-ApoE assays provide a practical approach, but they have so far been validated only in plasma. Methods Plasma and serum obtained from a single blood draw from 157 patients were analyzed using ApoE4 and Pan-ApoE chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassays. The APOE genotype was determined by allele-specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Additional experiments assessed assay repeatability, intermediate precision, and sample stability under various storage conditions. Results ApoE4, Pan-ApoE, and the resulting ApoE4/Pan-ApoE ratio showed minimal bias, strong positive correlation and linearity between plasma and serum. Using matrix-specific thresholds, plasma- and serum-derived ApoE4/Pan-ApoE ratios accurately classified the ApoE4 phenotypes in concordance with APOE ε4 genotypes. The assay demonstrated repeatability of <15 % and <5 % (day 1 and 2), with intermediate precision <10 % for both Pan-ApoE and ApoE4. Plasma and serum showed both comparable stability after multiple freeze-thaw-cycles and up to 120 h at 4 °C, while serum showed deterioration after 120 h storage at 20 °C. Conclusions Using matrix-specific thresholds, the ApoE4/Pan-ApoE ratio in plasma and serum accurately classified the ApoE4 phenotype in concordance with APOE ε4 genotypes. Serum and plasma showed comparable stability and precision. Thus, serum is a reliable alternative to plasma for measuring Pan-ApoE and ApoE4 with the Lumipulse assays. The use of serum expands sample availability, particularly in retrospective studies or when collected alongside cerebrospinal fluid.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kortmann et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: