Background Gliomas are among the most malignant tumors, with a very poor prognosis. Early diagnosis is highly desirable since it can help implement more effective treatments for smaller tumors, which have not yet extensively metastasized. Improving early diagnosis may facilitate access of patients to clinical trials and prepare them for the future availability of new disease-modifying treatments. Methods: We analyzed retrospective samples collected at diagnosis (before therapy initiation), with PEA (Olink Proteomics), quantifying about 3,000 proteins. We utilized 30 plasmas from gliomas (20 glioblastomas, 5 anaplastic astrocytomas, 5 anaplastic oligodendrogliomas) and 20 meningiomas (as controls). We then analyzed the data to identify proteins which either alone, or in combination, could discriminate gliomas from meningiomas, or correlate with clinical and molecular alterations. Results:We identified 8 plasma proteins which were increased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (GFAP, NEFL, EDDM3B, PROK1, MMP3, CTRL, GP2, SPINT3) and 4 proteins which were decreased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (FABP4, ALDH3A1, IL-12B and OXT). Partition algorithms and logistic regression algorithms with two biomarkers (GFAP and FABP4) achieved sensitivity of 83% and 93% at 100% and 90% specificity, respectively. The strongest single marker was GFAP with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.86. The AUC for the GFAP-FABP4 combination was 0.98. Conclusion:PEA is a powerful new proteomic technology for biomarker discovery. GFAP and a handful of other plasma biomarkers may be useful for early glioma detection and probably, prognosis.

Background Gliomas are among the most malignant tumors, with a very poor prognosis. Early diagnosis is highly desirable since it can help implement more effective treatments for smaller tumors, which have not yet extensively metastasized. Improving early diagnosis may facilitate access of patients to clinical trials and prepare them for the future availability of new disease-modifying treatments. Methods We analyzed retrospective samples collected at diagnosis (before therapy initiation), with PEA (Olink Proteomics), quantifying about 3000 proteins. We utilized 30 plasmas from gliomas (20 glioblastomas, 5 anaplastic astrocytomas, 5 anaplastic oligodendrogliomas) and 20 meningiomas (as controls). We then analyzed the data to identify proteins which either alone, or in combination, could discriminate gliomas from meningiomas, or correlate with clinical and molecular alterations. Results We identified 8 plasma proteins which were increased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (GFAP, NEFL, EDDM3B, PROK1, MMP3, CTRL, GP2, SPINT3) and 4 proteins which were decreased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (FABP4, ALDH3A1, IL-12B and OXT). Partition algorithms and logistic regression algorithms with two biomarkers (GFAP and FABP4) achieved sensitivity of 83% and 93% at 100% and 90% specificity, respectively. The strongest single marker was GFAP with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.86. The AUC for the GFAP-FABP4 combination was 0.98. Conclusion PEA is a powerful new proteomic technology for biomarker discovery. GFAP and a handful of other plasma biomarkers may be useful for early glioma detection and probably, prognosis. Statement Detecting gliomas as early as possible is highly desirable since it can significantly improve the chances of effective treatments. Reliable glioma biomarkers can timely inform glioma patients about the efficacy of their prescribed treatment. Our results reveal some novel putative glioma markers that may prove valuable, when used alone or in combination, towards improved clinical care of gliomas. In order to better appreciate the potential usefulness of these markers, their performance needs to be further validated in a larger cohort of samples.

Objectives Infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents occasionally with an aberrant autoinflammatory response, including the presence of elevated circulating autoantibodies in some individuals. Whether the development of autoantibodies against self-antigens affects COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear. To better understand the prognostic role of autoantibodies in COVID-19, we quantified autoantibodies against 23 markers that are used for diagnosis of autoimmune disease. To this end, we used serum samples from patients with severe [intensive care unit (ICU)] and moderate (ward) COVID-19, across two to six consecutive time points, and compared autoantibody levels to uninfected healthy and ICU controls. Methods Acute and post-acute serum (from 1 to 26 ICU days) was collected from 18 ICU COVID-19-positive patients at three to six time points; 18 ICU COVID-19-negative patients (sampled on ICU day 1 and 3); 21 ward COVID-19-positive patients (sampled on hospital day 1 and 3); and from 59 healthy uninfected controls deriving from two cohorts. Levels of IgG autoantibodies against 23 autoantigens, commonly used for autoimmune disease diagnosis, were measured in serum samples using MSD® U-PLEX electrochemiluminescence technology (MSD division Meso Scale Discovery®), and results were compared between groups. Results There were no significant elevations of autoantibodies for any of the markers tested in patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusions Sample collections at longer time points should be considered in future studies, for assessing the possible development of autoantibody responses following infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Background There are numerous benefits to performing salivary serology measurements for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative pathogen for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we used a sensitive multiplex serology assay to quantitate salivary IgG against 4 SARS-CoV-2 antigens: nucleocapsid, receptor-binding domain, spike, and N-terminal domain. Methods We used single samples from 90 individuals with COVID-19 diagnosis collected at 0 to 42 days postsymptom onset (PSO) and from 15 uninfected control subjects. The infected individuals were segmented in 4 groups (0–7 days, 8–14 days, 15–21 days, and >21 days) based on days PSO, and values were compared to controls. Results Compared to controls, infected individuals showed higher levels of antibodies against all antigens starting from 8 days PSO. When applying cut-offs with at least 93.3% specificity at every time interval segment, nucleocapsid protein serology had the best sensitivity at 0 to 7 days PSO (60% sensitivity [35.75% to 80.18%], ROC area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73, P = 0.034). Receptor-binding domain serology had the best sensitivity at 8 to 14 days PSO (83.33% sensitivity [66.44%–92.66%], ROC AUC = 0.90, P < 0.0001), and all assays except for N-terminal domain had 92% sensitivity (75.03%–98.58%) at >14 days PSO. Conclusions This study shows that our multiplexed immunoassay can distinguish infected from uninfected individuals and reliably (93.3% specificity) detect seroconversion (in 60% of infected individuals) as early as the first week PSO, using easy-to-collect saliva samples.