BiomarkersHumansPreprint43 participantsCross-sectional study

Special blood tubes match standard tests for Alzheimer markers

In 43 older adults, 127 brain-related proteins in specialised preservative tubes correlated strongly with standard tubes, with average correlation scores exceeding 0.8.

medRxiv

In a comparison of paired blood samples from 43 community-dwelling older adults, researchers tested whether specialised blood collection tubes could preserve protein markers linked to Alzheimer's disease. Standard blood collection uses EDTA tubes, whereas P100 tubes contain protease inhibitors, compounds that stop enzymes from breaking down proteins.

The team compared 127 neurodegeneration-related proteins across both tube types using a proteomic assay. Protein levels in P100 and EDTA tubes correlated strongly, with mean and median correlation coefficients exceeding 0.8. Six conventional Alzheimer's biomarkers showed strong agreement, although phosphorylated tau-217 had a lower correlation of 0.57. When classifying participants by brain amyloid status in a subset with imaging data, classification concordance between the two tube types reached up to 92%, with no significant difference for 80% of biomarkers.

Why it matters

Reliable blood biomarkers could assist research into Alzheimer's disease and other age-related brain disorders. Using tubes that preserve proteins without immediate processing could support remote blood collection where clinical laboratory facilities are unavailable.

Caveats

The findings were reported in a preprint and have not yet undergone peer review. The analysis included paired samples from only 43 older adults, and brain imaging was available for only a subset of participants.

The paper

Analytical performance of a delayed-centrifugation blood collection tube for remote blood biomarker assessment

Y.-R. Lee, X. Zeng, M. F. Farinas,
Show 3 more authorsB. J. Lopresti, R. F. Habte, K. A. Wilckens,
T. K. Karikari

University of Pittsburgh

medRxiv · 7 Oct 2026 · CC BY-NC-ND · Preprint, not peer-reviewed

doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.05.26364780