TY - JOUR T1 - An application of electronic nose technology for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease JF - European Respiratory Journal JO - Eur Respir J VL - 42 IS - Suppl 57 SP - P1275 AU - Andreas Rembert Koczulla AU - Maike Gold AU - Akira Hattesohl AU - Dirk Lubbe AU - David Mengel AU - Severin Schmid AU - Björn Tackenberg AU - Jürgen Rieke AU - Sasidhar Maddula AU - Jörg Ingo Baumbach AU - Joan Michelis AU - Judith Alferink AU - Michael Heneka AU - Wolfgang Oertel AU - Frank Jessen AU - Sabina Janciauskiene AU - Claus Vogelmeier AU - Richard Dodel AU - Jan-Philipp Bach Y1 - 2013/09/01 UR - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/42/Suppl_57/P1275.abstract N2 - Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder that mainly affects elderly people. Diagnosing AD on clinical grounds is difficult and based on the measurement of amyloid-beta (Aβ), (phosphorylated)tau-protein in cerebrospinal fluid. The specificity is rather low. Novel diagnostic tools via exhaled breath (EB) have been applied to identify patients with respiratory diseases like electronic nose devices (eNose and ion-mobility spectrometry, (IMS)). In this study, we introduce these techniques to the field of Alzheimer’s disease. Methods: AD patients and healthy controls were sampled for EB and EB condensate analysis in two study centers (AD n= 18, 21), (HC n= 19, 16). EB condensate and human lung tissue were analyzed for different Aβ species, tau-protein using ELISA. EB was analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC)s by patterns (Cyranose 320, IMS) and by single VOCs (IMS). Results: By Cyranose 320R we could differentiate with the leave-one-out cross-validation between healthy control and AD patients with a sensitivity of 69.8 % and a specificity of 68.7 %. Based on single identified substances with IMS a decision tree was calculated to differentiate between AD and HC (sensitivity 81 %, specificity of 95 %). We identified Aβ species in the lung tissue of healthy controls and within the EB condensate in both groups; however, no significant differences within the groups were detected. Conclusions: These data opens new possibilities in the diagnosis of AD. Interestingly the difference in both groups seems not related to Aβ species and tau-protein. Further research is required to evaluate the significance of these findings in relation to the pathophysiology of AD. ER -