Cited by 6Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Quantification of plasma APOE4 with a novel automated Lumipulse immunoassay enables the identification of homozygous and heterozygous APOE ε4 carrier status

Open access
Musso, G., Cosma, C., Moz, S., Gabelli, C., Navaglia, F., Codemo, A., Zambon, C.F., Cagnin, A. +3 more·2026·Clinica Chimica Acta

Abstract

Introduction The Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele is a significant risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). While genetic testing remains the gold standard for determining APOE status, protein-level quantification could offer advantages in clinical practice. This study evaluates a novel, fully automated immunoassay for quantifying APOE4 and total APOE (Pan-APOE) in plasma samples, assessing its accuracy and clinical utility compared to traditional genetic testing. Materials and methods Plasma samples from 65 patients (39 ε4 non-carriers, 21 ε4 heterozygous, 5 ε4 homozygous) were analyzed using the Lumipulse 1200 G APOE4 & Pan-APOE immunoassays. The APOE4/Pan-APOE ratio (Ratio%) was calculated to determine ε4 carrier status. Results were compared to genetic testing. Assay repeatability was evaluated using triplicate measurements from three patients with different genotypes. Results APOE4 and Pan-APOE protein levels and Ratio% differed significantly across ε4 status groups (p Discussion This novel immunoassay demonstrates excellent and potential for faster results could offer advantages in clinical practice, particularly for AD therapy eligibility evaluation. However, further validation in larger, diverse cohorts is necessary before considering widespread clinical implementation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cca.2025.120659

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Musso, G., Cosma, C., Moz, S., Gabelli, C., Navaglia, F., Codemo, A., Zambon, C. F., Cagnin, A., Antonini, A., Corbetta, M., & Montagnana, M.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Musso, G.
Venue
Clinica Chimica Acta
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-01
Volume
579
Pages
120659
ISSN
0009-8981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415092668
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinica Chimica Acta (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
apolipoprotein E, APOE ε4, Alzheimer's disease risk, automated immunoassay, assay repeatability
MeSH terms
Aged, Automation, Female, Heterozygote, Homozygote, Humans, Immunoassay, Male, Middle Aged, Apolipoprotein E4

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review