2010
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009166
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plasma Protein Biomarkers for Depression and Schizophrenia by Multi Analyte Profiling of Case-Control Collections

Abstract: Despite significant research efforts aimed at understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of psychiatric disorders, the diagnosis and the evaluation of treatment of these disorders are still based solely on relatively subjective assessment of symptoms. Therefore, biological markers which could improve the current classification of psychiatry disorders, and in perspective stratify patients on a biological basis into more homogeneous clinically distinct subgroups, are highly needed. In order to identify nove… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

18
246
5
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 314 publications
(272 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
18
246
5
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In a multianalyte profiling study of plasma from patients with schizophrenia and major depression, MMPs and TIMPs emerged as significant markers discriminating patients from controls. 49 Our results indicate that serum TIMPs do not differentiate patients with moodstabilized bipolar disorder from healthy controls.…”
Section: J Psychiatry Neurosci 2015;40(4)mentioning
confidence: 62%
“…In a multianalyte profiling study of plasma from patients with schizophrenia and major depression, MMPs and TIMPs emerged as significant markers discriminating patients from controls. 49 Our results indicate that serum TIMPs do not differentiate patients with moodstabilized bipolar disorder from healthy controls.…”
Section: J Psychiatry Neurosci 2015;40(4)mentioning
confidence: 62%
“…However, due to complex disease pathologies and aetiological heterogeneity, it turns out that standalone markers are rather unlikely to be specific or else applicable on a wide-scale and a whole set of candidate markers are considered to be more promising e.g. as demonstrated by Domenici et al (Domenici et al 2010). According to Yager et al there are as yet no accepted biomarkers, which allow the evaluation of the wound status and this critically hampers the improvement of appropriate treatments and effective therapies.…”
Section: Biomarkersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But each also remains curiously under-represented in mainstream GxE research today. This is despite evidence to suggest they may serve a functional purpose as biomarkers of environmentally-induced pathogenesis, susceptibility, illness progression and treatment outcome [146][147][148][149][150][151][152] . Despite these documented examples, each discipline also faces thematic questions about how to achieve methodological best practice, given their various respective constraints 147,153,154 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%