[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-459360-105":59,"doc-detail-459360-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","plasma-versus-serum-which-is-better-for-proteomic-blood-biomarker-analysis-evaluation-of-the-novel-nulisa-platform","Plasma versus serum - which is better for proteomic blood biomarker analysis? Evaluation of the novel NULISA platform","","Blood biomarker studies commonly use plasma, but serum remains an alternative when clinical chemistry laboratories prefer it; its suitability for targeted proteomic testing is uncertain. This poster compares the NULISAseq targeted proteomics platform (NULISA) in paired plasma and serum from identical blood draws in a memory clinical cohort. Using NULISAseq CNS panel analysis on an Alamar platform, the study evaluates detectability, variability, concordance, and diagnostic performance to determine which matrix better supports Alzheimer’s biomarker analyses.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/plasma-versus-serum-which-is-better-for-proteomic-blood-biomarker-analysis-evaluation-of-the-novel-nulisa-platform/459360/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/plasma-versus-serum-which-is-better-for-proteomic-blood-biomarker-analysis-evaluation-of-the-novel-nulisa-platform/459360.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Theodore","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-08","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main question of this study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Whether plasma or serum is better for proteomic blood biomarker analysis using the novel NULISA platform.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How were plasma and serum compared?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Paired plasma and serum samples from the same donors were processed and analyzed with the NULISAseq CNS disease panel on an Alamar system, followed by correlation, difference testing, and ROC/AUC evaluation.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What did the study find about biomarker detectability and consistency?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The assay showed high detectability with low variability and strong correlations for multiple traditional Alzheimer’s biomarkers across both plasma and serum, but absolute protein levels differed by matrix type for several targets.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},459360,1790755784,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":14,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":24,"preview_page_count":4},7971461740886,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","DOI: 10. 1002/alz70856_106497  \nBIOMARKERS  \nPOSTER PRESENTATION  \nBIOMARKERS (NON-NEUROIMAGING)  \nPlasma versus serum: which is better for proteomic blood biomarker analysis? Evaluation of the novel NULISA platform  \nMarissa F Farinas1  \nAlexandra Gogola3 Jennifer H Lingler2, 5  \nVictor L. Villemagne2 M. Ilyas Kamboh2, 5, 8, 9 Ann D Cohen 1, 2, 5   \nYijun Chen2  Xuemei Zeng 1  Michel N Nafash 1   \nJulia K. Kofler 1, 4  Dana L Tudorascu2  C. Elizabeth Shaaban2, 5  Tharick A Pascoal 1, 2  William E Klunk2, 5   \n Sarah B Berman 1, 2  Robert Sweet 1, 6, 7   \n Milos D. Ikonomovic 1, 2, 4, 7  Beth E. Snitz 1, 2, 5  Oscar L Lopez 1, 2, 5  Thomas K Karikari2  \n1 University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n2 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n3 University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n4 UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n5 University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC), Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n6 Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n7VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n8School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \n9 Department of Human Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA  \nCorrespondence  \nMarissa F Farinas, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. [Email:](Email: farinasmf@upmc.edu)[ farinasmf@upmc.edu](Email: farinasmf@upmc.edu)  \nAbstract  \nBackground: Blood biomarker studies most often use plasma samples. Suitability of serum as an alternative sample type remains unclear, despite many clinical chemistry laboratories preferring it over plasma. We compared the technical performance of the novel NUcleic acid-Linked Immuno-Sandwich Assay (NULISA), a blood-based targeted proteomic biomarker assay, in plasma and serum samples processed from identical blood draws in a memory clinical cohort.  \nMethods: Paired plasma and serum samples from 43 donors (75.2±7.8 years, 41.9% female, 32.6% probable AD) from the University of Pittsburgh ADRC were analyzed using the NULISAseq CNS disease panel 120 (v2) on an Alamar ARGOTM system, following manufacturer protocols. Protein levels were quantified by next generation sequencing, normalized, scaled, and log 2-transformed to NULISA Protein Quantification (NPQ) units. Spearman’s rank correlation assessed concordance between plasma and serum NPQs, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test evaluated differences in protein levels. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to determine diagnostic accuracy.  \nResults: The assay achieved high analyte detectability (95.7% ± 14. 2%) with low variability (%CV: 4. 9%). Strong correlations (Spearman rho: 0.75-0. 96) were observed for traditional AD biomarkers (Aβ42, p-Tau217, p-Tau231, p-Tau181, GFAP, NEFL) across both matrices. ANXA5, NRGN, and Oligo-SNCA were the top three targets significantly more detectable in plasma (log2 plasma vs. serum fold change: 9.72, 9.48, and 4.99), while TIMP3, S100A12, and BDNF were the top three targets that showed  \nThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.  \n© 2025 The Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer’s Association.  \nAlzheimer’s Dement. 2025;21(Suppl. 2):e106497.  \n[https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70856_106497](https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70856_106497)  \nwi[leyonlinelibrary.com/journal/alz](leyonlinelibrary.com/journal/alz)  \n1of2  \nBIOMARKERS  \nhigher levels in serum (log2 plasma vs. serum fold change: -2. 91, -2. 66, and -2.42). Notably, Aβ42, p-tau181, p-tau217, and p-tau231 levels were significantly higher in plasma than in serum (p \u003C0.001). Contrarily, GFAP and NEFL levels were similar in plasma and serum (p >0.05). Serum ACHE (AUC: 0.874, 95% CI","cbCaidxxfDvsNhf1","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidxxfDvsNhf1","pdf",102373,"English","# Abstract\n## Background\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What is the main question of this study?\",\"answer\":\"Whether plasma or serum is better for proteomic blood biomarker analysis using the novel NULISA platform.\"},{\"question\":\"How were plasma and serum compared?\",\"answer\":\"Paired plasma and serum samples from the same donors were processed and analyzed with the NULISAseq CNS disease panel on an Alamar system, followed by correlation, difference testing, and ROC/AUC evaluation.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the study find about biomarker detectability and consistency?\",\"answer\":\"The assay showed high detectability with low variability and strong correlations for multiple traditional Alzheimer’s biomarkers across both plasma and serum, but absolute protein levels differed by matrix type for several targets.\"}]","Plasma versus serum - which is better for proteomic blood biomarker analysis? Evaluation of the novel NULISA platform | PDF"]