Exploiting blood-based biomarkers to align preclinical models with human traumatic brain injury.

IF 10.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Brain Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI:10.1093/brain/awae350
Ilaria Lisi, Federico Moro, Edoardo Mazzone, Niklas Marklund, Francesca Pischiutta, Firas Kobeissy, Xiang Mao, Frances Corrigan, Adel Helmy, Fatima Nasrallah, Valentina Di Pietro, Laura B Ngwenya, Luis V Portela, Bridgette D Semple, Andrea L C Schneider, Ramon Diaz Arrastia, David K Menon, Douglas H Smith, Cheryl Wellington, David J Loane, Kevin K W Wang, Elisa R Zanier
{"title":"Exploiting blood-based biomarkers to align preclinical models with human traumatic brain injury.","authors":"Ilaria Lisi, Federico Moro, Edoardo Mazzone, Niklas Marklund, Francesca Pischiutta, Firas Kobeissy, Xiang Mao, Frances Corrigan, Adel Helmy, Fatima Nasrallah, Valentina Di Pietro, Laura B Ngwenya, Luis V Portela, Bridgette D Semple, Andrea L C Schneider, Ramon Diaz Arrastia, David K Menon, Douglas H Smith, Cheryl Wellington, David J Loane, Kevin K W Wang, Elisa R Zanier","doi":"10.1093/brain/awae350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rodent models are important research tools for studying the pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and developing new therapeutic interventions for this devastating neurological disorder. However, the failure rate for the translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments for TBI is 100%. While there are several potential explanations for this, previous clinical trials have relied on extrapolation from preclinical studies for critical design considerations, including drug dose optimization, post-injury drug treatment initiation and duration. Incorporating clinically relevant biomarkers in preclinical studies may provide an opportunity to calibrate preclinical models to identical (or similar) measurements in humans, link to human TBI biomechanics and pathophysiology, and guide therapeutic decisions. To support this translational goal, we conducted a systematic literature review of preclinical TBI studies in rodents measuring blood levels of clinically used GFAP, UCH-L1, NfL, total-Tau (t-Tau) or phosphorylated-Tau (p-Tau) published in PubMed/EMBASE up to 10 April 2024. Although many factors influence clinical TBI outcomes, many of those cannot routinely be assessed in rodent studies (e.g. intracranial pressure monitoring). Thus we focused on blood biomarkers' temporal trajectories and discuss our findings in the context of the latest clinical TBI biomarker data. Of 805 original preclinical studies, 74 met the inclusion criteria, with a median quality score of 5 (25th-75th percentiles: 4-7) on the CAMARADES checklist. GFAP was measured in 43 studies, UCH-L1 in 21, NfL in 20, t-Tau in 19 and p-Tau in seven. Data from rodent models indicate that all biomarkers exhibited injury severity-dependent elevations with distinct temporal profiles. GFAP and UCH-L1 peaked within the first day after TBI (30- and 4-fold increases, respectively, in moderate-to-severe TBI versus sham), with the highest levels observed in the contusion TBI model. NfL peaked within days (18-fold increase) and remained elevated up to 6 months post-injury. GFAP and NfL show a pharmacodynamic response in 64.7% and 60%, respectively, of studies evaluating neuroprotective therapies in preclinical models. However, GFAP's rapid decline post-injury may limit its utility for understanding the response to new therapeutics beyond the hyperacute phase after experimental TBI. Furthermore, as in humans, subacute NfL levels inform on chronic white matter loss after TBI. t-Tau and p-Tau levels increased over weeks after TBI (up to 6- and 16-fold, respectively); however, their relationship with underlying neurodegeneration has yet to be addressed. Further investigation into biomarker levels in the subacute and chronic phases after TBI will be needed to fully understand the pathomechanisms underpinning blood biomarkers' trajectories and select the most suitable experimental model to optimally relate preclinical mechanistic studies to clinical observations in humans. This new approach could accelerate the translation of neuroprotective treatments from laboratory experiments to real-world clinical practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":9063,"journal":{"name":"Brain","volume":" ","pages":"1062-1080"},"PeriodicalIF":10.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11967814/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae350","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rodent models are important research tools for studying the pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and developing new therapeutic interventions for this devastating neurological disorder. However, the failure rate for the translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments for TBI is 100%. While there are several potential explanations for this, previous clinical trials have relied on extrapolation from preclinical studies for critical design considerations, including drug dose optimization, post-injury drug treatment initiation and duration. Incorporating clinically relevant biomarkers in preclinical studies may provide an opportunity to calibrate preclinical models to identical (or similar) measurements in humans, link to human TBI biomechanics and pathophysiology, and guide therapeutic decisions. To support this translational goal, we conducted a systematic literature review of preclinical TBI studies in rodents measuring blood levels of clinically used GFAP, UCH-L1, NfL, total-Tau (t-Tau) or phosphorylated-Tau (p-Tau) published in PubMed/EMBASE up to 10 April 2024. Although many factors influence clinical TBI outcomes, many of those cannot routinely be assessed in rodent studies (e.g. intracranial pressure monitoring). Thus we focused on blood biomarkers' temporal trajectories and discuss our findings in the context of the latest clinical TBI biomarker data. Of 805 original preclinical studies, 74 met the inclusion criteria, with a median quality score of 5 (25th-75th percentiles: 4-7) on the CAMARADES checklist. GFAP was measured in 43 studies, UCH-L1 in 21, NfL in 20, t-Tau in 19 and p-Tau in seven. Data from rodent models indicate that all biomarkers exhibited injury severity-dependent elevations with distinct temporal profiles. GFAP and UCH-L1 peaked within the first day after TBI (30- and 4-fold increases, respectively, in moderate-to-severe TBI versus sham), with the highest levels observed in the contusion TBI model. NfL peaked within days (18-fold increase) and remained elevated up to 6 months post-injury. GFAP and NfL show a pharmacodynamic response in 64.7% and 60%, respectively, of studies evaluating neuroprotective therapies in preclinical models. However, GFAP's rapid decline post-injury may limit its utility for understanding the response to new therapeutics beyond the hyperacute phase after experimental TBI. Furthermore, as in humans, subacute NfL levels inform on chronic white matter loss after TBI. t-Tau and p-Tau levels increased over weeks after TBI (up to 6- and 16-fold, respectively); however, their relationship with underlying neurodegeneration has yet to be addressed. Further investigation into biomarker levels in the subacute and chronic phases after TBI will be needed to fully understand the pathomechanisms underpinning blood biomarkers' trajectories and select the most suitable experimental model to optimally relate preclinical mechanistic studies to clinical observations in humans. This new approach could accelerate the translation of neuroprotective treatments from laboratory experiments to real-world clinical practices.

利用基于血液的生物标志物使临床前模型与人类创伤性脑损伤相一致。
啮齿动物模型是研究创伤性脑损伤(TBI)病理生理学和开发治疗这种破坏性神经系统疾病的新方法的重要研究工具。然而,将治疗创伤性脑损伤的药物从动物试验转化为人体治疗的失败率高达 100%。虽然有几种可能的原因可以解释这一点,但以前的临床试验都依赖于从临床前研究中推断出关键的设计考虑因素,包括药物剂量优化、受伤后药物治疗的开始和持续时间。在临床前研究中纳入临床相关的生物标志物可提供一个机会,将临床前模型与人体相同(或相似)的测量结果进行校准,与人体创伤性脑损伤生物力学和病理生理学联系起来,并指导治疗决策。为了支持这一转化目标,我们对截至 2024 年 4 月 10 日发表在 PubMed/EMBASE 上的临床前啮齿动物 TBI 研究进行了系统性文献综述,这些研究测量了临床常用的 GFAP、UCH-L1、NfL、t-Tau 或 p-Tau 的血液水平。虽然影响临床 TBI 结果的因素很多,但其中许多因素无法在啮齿类动物研究中进行常规评估(如 ICP 监测),因此我们重点研究了血液生物标志物的时间轨迹,并结合最新的临床 TBI 生物标志物数据讨论了我们的研究结果。在 805 项原始临床前研究中,有 74 项符合纳入标准,CAMARADES 检查表的中位质量分数为 5(第 25-75 百分位数:4-7)。43项研究测量了GFAP,21项研究测量了UCH-L1,20项研究测量了NfL,19项研究测量了t-Tau,7项研究测量了p-Tau。啮齿类动物模型的数据表明,所有生物标志物都表现出与损伤严重程度相关的升高,且具有不同的时间特征。GFAP 和 UCH-L1 在创伤性脑损伤后的第一天内达到峰值(与假性脑损伤相比,中重度创伤性脑损伤的 GFAP 和 UCH-L1 分别增加了 30 倍和 4 倍),在挫伤性创伤性脑损伤模型中观察到最高水平。NfL 在损伤后数天内达到峰值(增加 18 倍),并在损伤后 6 个月内保持升高。在临床前模型中评估神经保护疗法的研究中,分别有 64.7% 和 60% 的 GFAP 和 NfL 出现了药效学反应。然而,GFAP 在损伤后会迅速下降,这可能会限制其在了解实验性创伤性脑损伤后超急性期之后对新疗法反应的实用性。t-Tau和p-Tau水平在创伤后数周内上升(分别高达6倍和16倍);然而,它们与潜在神经变性的关系还有待研究。需要进一步调查创伤性脑损伤后亚急性和慢性阶段的生物标志物水平,以充分了解血液生物标志物轨迹的病理机制,并选择最合适的实验模型,将临床前机理研究与人体临床观察进行最佳关联。这种新方法可以加速神经保护疗法从实验室实验向现实世界临床实践的转化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain
Brain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
20.30
自引率
4.10%
发文量
458
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Brain, a journal focused on clinical neurology and translational neuroscience, has been publishing landmark papers since 1878. The journal aims to expand its scope by including studies that shed light on disease mechanisms and conducting innovative clinical trials for brain disorders. With a wide range of topics covered, the Editorial Board represents the international readership and diverse coverage of the journal. Accepted articles are promptly posted online, typically within a few weeks of acceptance. As of 2022, Brain holds an impressive impact factor of 14.5, according to the Journal Citation Reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信