You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Biomarkers in traumatic brain injury: a review
Free
  1. Emma Toman1,
  2. S Harrisson2 and
  3. T Belli3,4
  1. 1Major Trauma Service, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2Academic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK
  3. 3National Institute for Health Research Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, Birmingham, UK
  4. 4University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Emma Toman, Major Trauma Service, Nuffield House 6th floor, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2WB, UK; emma.toman{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Biomarkers allow physiological processes to be monitored, in both health and injury. Multiple attempts have been made to use biomarkers in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Identification of such biomarkers could allow improved understanding of the pathological processes involved in TBI, diagnosis, prognostication and development of novel therapies. This review article aims to cover both established and emerging TBI biomarkers along with their benefits and limitations. It then discusses the potential value of TBI biomarkers to military, civilian and sporting populations and the future hopes for developing a role for biomarkers in head injury management.

  • NEUROSURGERY
  • NEUROPATHOLOGY
  • TRAUMA MANAGEMENT

https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2015-000517

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Key messages

    • Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an increasingly survivable phenomenon of conflict.

    • Biomarkers are developing as a tool in the management of TBI and are therefore relevant to this cohort of injured personnel.

    • Promising advances have been made in the use of biomarkers in the diagnosis of mild TBI.

    Introduction

    Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is defined as ‘a blow or a jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts brain functioning’.1 Every 90 s in the UK somebody is admitted to a hospital with a brain injury and approximately one million people are living with the lasting consequences of TBI.2 It is the leading civilian cause of traumatic death in the under-35 age group in England and Wales3 and, perhaps controversially, mild TBI has been described as ‘the signature (injury) of the modern conflicts’4 when considering the military population. TBI remains a complex subject given its unpredictable and variable nature creating obstacles for classification, study design and management in this cohort of patients.

    Public interest in TBI has risen since the death of Jules Bianchi this year and the life-changing injury sustained by Michael Schumacher in 2013. Awareness of TBI in sports is also increasing with the large number of successful lawsuits involving American footballers and the death of young rugby player Ben Robinson in 2011 due to second impact syndrome.

    The role of biomarkers

    Biomarkers of neuronal injury have been sought after since the 1950s and interest in them has increased significantly over the past 25 years5 (Figure 1). A biomarker can be defined as a naturally occurring characteristic that can be objectively measured and interpreted as an indicator of biological processes or responses to therapeutic interventions.6 Several review articles concerning the use of TBI biomarkers have been published since the 1980s5 ,7–10 and collectively their conclusions are similar. All reviews until now champion the need for further research into biomarkers and the high priority this should be given.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Number of brain biomarkers papers published by year. Pubmed search.

    To understand the clinical relevance of biomarkers, it must be understood how they can be interpreted. Each type of biomarker, whether physical or biological, is a surrogate for a relevant clinical endpoint.11 A clinical endpoint is defined as a ‘characteristic or variable that reflects how a patient feels, functions or survives’.6 Ideally, a biomarker of TBI should reflect the level of neuronal injury correlating to brain function and outcome in a linear fashion.

    An example of a commonly used biomarker is that of prostate-specific antigen, a glycoprotein produced by the prostate and used to detect and monitor prostate cancer and assess therapeutic interventions. Similarly, biomarkers of neuronal injury may one day aid in early diagnosis of TBI (particularly mild TBI), improve prognostication, monitor ongoing pathological processes and measure the efficacy of treatments.5 ,10 ,12 There is also a collective desire that these biomarkers will become reliable enough to detect mild TBI, a diagnosis that is currently complex, often missed and not without potentially serious consequences.

    In 1983, while researching TBI biomarkers found in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), Bakay and Ward13 described the ideal characteristics for a biomarker of brain injury (Table 1). Studies so far have yet to identify a biomarker that satisfies all of these criteria and it is likely that a combination of markers is more likely to have a stronger clinical relevance.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Bakay and Ward's criteria for the ideal characteristics for brain injury biomarkers14

    Potential TBI biomarkers

    Lactate dehydrogenase

    Cerebral lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was first described by Robinson in 196514 in a paper outlining its properties sampled from human frontal cortex. The isotype of LDH found in greatest abundance in the central nervous system (CNS), however, can also be found in the heart, kidney and erythrocytes.15 It is for this reason that systemic trauma as well as isolated neuronal injury can cause a rise in serum LDH.

    Initial studies in the 1970s found a positive correlation between LDH, severity of head injury and clinical outcome. However, this was disputed by Bakay and Ward in 1983 where they concluded LDH could not be used as a reliable marker of neuronal injury given its lack of specificity and sensitivity in the context of systemic trauma.13 A 2002 review highlighted the ‘methodological weakness’ of the initial 1970s papers given these studies were conducted prior to the introduction of the GCS or CT scanning.8

    Creatine kinase

    There are three identifiable isotypes of creatine kinase, with creatine kinase of the brain (CK-BB) located in the astrocytes of the CNS. Although lower concentrations of CK-BB can also be found in the abdominal organs, it is not evident in erythrocytes making serum levels physiologically low. Both serum and CSF concentrations of CK-BB have been shown to increase following TBI, with levels peaking in the acute phase of injury before returning to normal.16 ,17 Levels have also been shown to rise significantly in CSF following hypoxic brain injury in cardiac arrest18 highlighting the potential for CK-BB release secondary to cerebral hypoperfusion due to systemic trauma. Ingebrigtsen and Romner also concluded that CK-BB has low specificity and sensitivity for TBI.8

    S-100β proteins

    S-100β has been recognised as a ‘promising, non-proprietary brain injury biomarker’9 and has even been suggested as the ‘CRP of the brain’.19 It was first described in 1965, the name S-100β being derived from the protein characteristics; it is 100% soluble in saturated ammonium sulfate at neutral pH.20 Three types of S-100 proteins are formed from variants of their two distinct subunits, α and β. The types found predominantly in the cytosol of CNS glial cells are commonly referred to as the S-100β proteins. They have negligible concentration levels in other cells and are metabolised by the kidney prior to excretion in the urine.

    A recent review in 2013 concluded that S-100β can distinguish between an injured patient and a non-injured patient21 and several studies have correlated levels of S-100β to both injury severity and outcome after TBI.9 ,22–25 Serum samples of S-100β have been found to accurately predict acute mortality, whereas CSF levels are associated with outcomes and overall mortality.26 This may be explained by the expressions of S-100β in extracranial tissues such as adipocytes or chondrocytes, leading to increased levels that are observed in patients with polytrauma without brain injury.26

    While studies have shown S-100β to be useful after severe injury, the evidence in mild injury is less convincing.24 ,27 Serum S-100β can be used as a marker of blood–brain barrier (BBB) disruption and can be ‘favourably compared’ with the CSF–serum albumin quotient, the gold standard for assessment of BBB permeability.28 Levels of S-100β therefore remain dependent on the integrity of the BBB and plasma levels may correlate poorly to levels within the brain itself.29 This makes S-100β less reliable in minor TBI, where there is a lower level of BBB disruption.30

    The drawback with S-100β is its short half-life; only the most severe TBI will have a raised level beyond an hour following injury and hence its use for measurements as a marker of ongoing disease processes is limited.31

    Neuron-specific enolase

    Enolases are glycolytic enzymes comprising three different subunits (α, β, γ), originally described across four different animal species in the 1960s.20 The two most stable forms are isoforms γγ and αγ, which are referred to as neuron-specific enolase (NSE) due to the fact that they are restricted to the cytoplasm of neurons, peripheral neuroendocrine tissue and tumours of the amine uptake and degradation system.

    The potential value of NSE is evident as its action is directly related to neuronal activity rather than glial or Schwann cells.8 Although suggested to correlate with GCS when used as a stand-alone biomarker,32 the role of NSE is mostly recognised in conjunction with additional markers.21 ,33 In mild TBI, combining S-100β with NSE added value in the early prognosis of patients34 and as part of a biomarker panel can be found in the CSF for up to 3 days post-injury in severe TBI.35

    NSE proteins can also be found in erythrocytes and platelets9 making the process of haemolysis a significant source of cross-contamination when measured in trauma.36 This was demonstrated in a 2003 study in which a similar increase in plasma NSE in both TBI and non-TBI trauma cohorts was demonstrated.37 Another drawback of NSE is its slow elimination from plasma leading to difficulties in distinguishing between primary and secondary insults to the brain.26 This does makes acute levels difficult to interpret and perhaps does not reflect ‘real-time’ pathological processes when measured alone.

    Glial fibrillary acidic protein

    Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is also found within the glial cells of the CNS, a filament protein first described by Eng in 1971.38 The usefulness of GFAP as an indicator of CNS pathology has been reported in numerous conditions, including cerebral infarction, preterm neurological abnormality, encephalopathy and TBI.8 It can differentiate injury severity in a manner similar to the Marshall scoring system for CT scans, as well as those patients who had raised intracranial pressure (ICP) or reduced cerebral perfusion pressure.22 GFAP levels are higher in patients with mass lesions compared with diffuse injury,39 arguably a redundant characteristic in hospitals where CT scanners are readily available but could be of potential value in the prehospital setting.

    Studies have shown that GFAP is a better predictor of severe disability and vegetative states in comparison with predicting good outcomes22 ,40 and has been found to strongly predict death at 6 months.39 So far GFAP shows good potential to predict outcome after severe TBI, but has not been adequately studied in mild and moderate injuries.9

    Myelin basic protein

    Specific to myelin, this protein is found in growing oligodendroglial cells, bound to the cell membrane and is released into the serum on damage to the brain or during demyelination. In combination with NSE, myelin basic protein (MBP) may be useful in screening for inflicted TBI in children.33 Although reports have demonstrated excellent specificity for TBI, it has limited sensitivity23 and has more potential when measured alongside NSE levels;33 it is due to this lack of clinical sensitivity that interest in MBP as a marker has lessened in recent years in comparison with NSE, S-100β and GFAP.21

    Spectrin breakdown products

    During necrotic cell death and apopotic cell death, cysteine proteases, named calpain and caspase-3, cleave components of the axonal cytoskeleton41 resulting in signature molecular weight breakdown products (spectrin breakdown products (SBDPs)). Following brain injury (and ischaemia), calpains and caspases become hyperactivated and SBDPs have therefore been suggested as possible biomarkers of TBI.9 SBDPs were first isolated from TBI-induced rat brains in 199842 and have since been isolated in human CSF of patients with TBI.43–47

    Since their discovery, however, several problems with SBDPs have been highlighted. First, it has been recognised that SBDPs are not neuronally specific and serum levels may reflect multiorgan damage in trauma.9 Also, in 2010, Li et al10 suggested that SBDPs cannot be accurately measured in CSF contaminated by blood, given that some proteins found in erythrocytes are similar to those found in the neuronal cytoskeleton; as a large number of TBI cases involve traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage, this may severely reduce the value of SBDPs.

    Microtubule-associated proteins

    Microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) exist in many different cell types regulating the stability of microtubules. A breakdown product of MAP-tau, found exclusively in neuronal axons and dendrites, has been isolated from brain-injured rats and named c-tau.48 ,49 In 2006, a study demonstrated higher levels of post-traumatic CSF c-tau were associated with a poorer clinical outcome following severe TBI.40 However, no statistically significant correlation has been found between levels of c-tau and outcome following mild TBI.27 MAP-2 has been used in humans as a marker of hypoxia and ischaemia50 and there is some evidence that it may be a potential marker for higher cognitive functioning, as patients with better recovery following severe TBI demonstrate chronic release of MAP-2 thought to be due to neuroplasticity.51

    Neurofilaments

    Consisting of three chains, light (L), medium (M) and heavy (H), neurofilaments make up part of the axonal cytoskeleton. Their tail sections can be phosphorylated with increasing levels of phosphorylation proportional to axonal diameter and velocity of axonal transport.10 Following axonal injury, the influx of calcium alters the phosphorylation state and there is loss of cytoskeletal structure and subsequent proteolysis. Neurofilament-L has been shown in CSF to be sensitive and specific to TBI;52 however, serum detection of neurofilament-H is considered a more likely biomarker candidate.53

    Neuroinflammatory cytokine markers

    Previously thought to be ‘immune privileged’, the CNS does in fact demonstrate features of inflammation in response to injury, infection or disease. Lucas et al54 produced a review in 2006 that provided a detailed account of the role of inflammation following varying CNS insults.

    Inflammatory proteins, such as the interleukins (IL-6, IL-8 and IL-10), are increased in CSF in response to severe TBI; however, studies into their use in mild TBI are minimal.30 Hayakata et al studied both serum and CSF levels of inflammatory mediators in patients with severe TBI with and without additional (extracranial) injuries. They concluded that CSF anti-inflammatory mediators may be useful indicators of the severity of brain damage in relation to ICP and overall prognosis in severe TBI.55 Both this study and a 2005 study showed that serum concentrations of these cytokines were less accurate than CSF levels, especially in the context of polytrauma.55 ,56 More recently, Hergenroeder et al57 have published reports showing that serum IL-6 may be a marker for elevated ICP in isolated head injuries, however, again of less value in patients with polytrauma.

    Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L-1

    Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L-1 (UCH-L1) is a protein found in the neuronal cell body. Already investigated for its role in neurodegenerative diseases, it has recently been studied in relation to TBI. A 2010 paper used a rat model to demonstrate elevated levels of UCH-L1 in both CSF and serum samples following controlled cortical injury and middle cerebral artery occlusion.58 In human studies, there has also been shown to be a significant correlation between UCH-L1 concentrations and both neuroradiological findings and clinical outcome.39 ,59 There is increasing evidence that UCH-L1 is one of only a few markers that has been found to identify minor TBI as well as more severe injury.26

    Importantly, UCH-L1 also appears to be able to distinguish between patients with TBI and uninjured patients at 6 h when GCS is altered secondary to drugs and alcohol.26 Papa et al60 also showed that UCH-L1 levels can distinguish between patients with TBI demonstrating a GCS of 15 and control groups.

    Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor

    Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) is a cell surface protein that aids in plasmin proteolysis. It has been previously detected in CNS-infiltrating macrophages and the soluble form (soluble uPAR (suPAR)) has been detected in the CSF of patients with known inflammatory CNS pathologies such as neoplasia and prion disease.61 A recent study from 2014 demonstrated correlation between elevated suPAR levels, GCS and prognosis when used in TBI. The paper concluded that suPAR has high diagnostic specificity and sensitivity to differentiate survivable TBI and non-survivable TBI and prognosis for survivors was worse in those with higher levels.62 While this is an encouraging paper, issues again arise with specificity to TBI as suPAR is also found in extracranial tissues and has been implicated and studied for use as a biomarker in gastrointestinal cancers, intrinsic kidney disease and postcardiac arrest. Further research will be able to define the role of suPAR in TBI perhaps evolving from its current use in predicting survivability.

    Potential role of TBI biomarkers

    Biomarkers have the opportunity to allow us to possibly improve our diagnosis of TBI, improve our management by allowing us to monitor the disease processes, understand more the pathological processes involved and even target possible novel therapies. Much of the work with biomarkers has followed a typical pattern however. After an initial period of optimism, there is, then, a realisation that although an individual biomarker may be of some use, there are often multiple confounding factors. This is in part due to the nature of TBI. It is not a single pathological process as every injury is a unique mix of primary and secondary injuries producing different biomarkers depending on how each pathological process is involved.

    Trying to understand the time courses by which the biomarkers become measurable in CSF is one problem, but to identify them in plasma is even more complex. The question of the time course of biomarkers in plasma is complicated by the concern that rather than measuring the amount of TBI, the biomarker has instead become a measure of the BBB injury. The downfall of many of the early TBI biomarkers was the extraneuronal production of biomarkers, particularly in patients with polytrauma. Unless a truly pathognomonic biomarker for TBI is found, this is likely to remain the primary drawback for detection of TBI in the context of the multiply injured patient.

    So, where in particular could biomarkers be of value? In austere environments, where it is not possible to perform a CT scan or it is necessary to sedate a patient for other injuries, the potential for a biomarker to assess injury and give indication of worsening injury is huge, but this probably remains some way off. Biomarkers may also allow us to measure injury which is not evident on initial CT scans and hence allow observation of such patients to be arranged or modification of clinical management. A recent concern has been with regard to second impact syndrome, a process where a secondary injury to the brain within a short period seems to have a particularly deleterious course.

    Within the military, much has been written about blast injury causing TBI. Recent US studies have suggested that there has been a rapid rise in the incidence during the recent conflicts in the Iraq and Afghanistan.63 It is postulated that the incidence of military head and neck injuries may increase further, as casualties who would have previously died from severe thoracic, abdominal or fatal head trauma are now surviving due to better protective equipment.64 Although the mechanism remains unclear, explosive blast has been suggested as the causative factor for increasing brain injury within the military population, and mild TBI has been described as ‘the signature of the modern conflicts’.4 This is a controversial statement given that blast TBI is not fully understood, and studies undertaken in other countries have suggested that the link between blast and TBI is not so clear. The hope is that biomarkers may provide evidence to allow the diagnosis of blast TBI to be confirmed and may also demonstrate the specific pathological processes involved and the timeline in which these develop.

    There have been a number of studies looking at biomarker responses after blast exposure since the 1990s. A recent study suggested a potential biomarker specific to blast TBI—soluble cellular prion protein (PrPC). The hypothesis is that the primary blast wave can dislodge any extracellular PrPC and lead to a systemic rise in its concentration.65 The hypothesis was demonstrable in rat models in a 2015 study and the authors concluded the PrPC could be a novel biomarker for detection of primary blast TBI in military personnel.

    Within sport, many high-profile head injuries in rugby and football have raised concern about sports-related concussion and its long-term impact on sportsmen and women. These concerns have been around for a long time, more especially in American football players and boxers. In this cohort, biomarkers may also help to understand the significance of multiple head injuries over a longer period of time. In addition to its potential role in detection of blast TBI, PrPC has also been investigated as a promising marker for TBI in sports-related concussion.66 Overall, a number of biomarkers have demonstrated a correlation with various forms of head injury across a selection of sports.67 A recent systematic review of biomarkers in sports-concussion concluded by commenting that although ‘there are no validated biomarkers for concussion as yet, there is potential for biomarkers to provide diagnostic, prognostic, and monitoring information post injury’.67

    Future of biomarkers

    The recent 2014 review of biomarkers concluded positively. Forde et al68 summarised that ‘S100β, GFAP, TNF-α and MBP appear to have some use in determining the severity of TBI with GFAP and MBP proving to be the most specific for brain trauma’. The review, however, does conclude that no single biomarker alone has been proven to be of clinical use and future research should aim to identify a combination of sensitive and specific biomarkers to provide convincing prognostic TBI information.68

    In the recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) head injury guideline update, the Guidelines Development Group (GDG) felt it was not yet appropriate to make a recommendation for the use of biomarkers to triage, diagnose or prognosticate TBI. However, the update states that biomarkers in future may be useful for the selection of patients requiring neuroimaging and reduce the need for excess CT scans and hospital admissions.69 Prior to introducing the use of biomarkers to everyday practice, the GDG also highlights the need for further research into cost effectiveness before widespread use across the NHS given cost implications. Each biomarker test currently costs £131.34 to process.69

    Future studies will help to hone the use of known biomarkers and also identify potential new markers. As well as PrPC, there has been a recent description (2015) of another new biomarker—extracellular erizin, so far identified in samples taken from injured neurons in both live rat and human CSF.70

    As well as direct application in management of head injury, a recent article in Expert Review Neurotheraputics highlighted the potential use of biomarkers in research into neuroprotective therapies. The article, concerning losartan use post-TBI to reduce post-traumatic epilepsy, stressed the importance of developing reliable biomarkers to improve research into novel treatments.71

    Conclusion

    There has been much enthusiasm towards further development of biomarkers despite the limitations identified so far. The common drawbacks of current markers include their ambiguity in the presence of multiple injuries and their detection and prognostication of mild TBI. It has been recognised that in future biomarkers are likely to be used as an adjunct, supplementing traditional examination and neuroimaging in the diagnosis and prognosis for patients with TBI. With applications across the military, civilian and sporting populations, there is intense interest in TBI biomarkers with an ever-increasing amount of research into their development and clinical application. The goal is, as ever, to improve our management of this common and often life-changing injury across its spectrum of pathology, progression and outcome.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Faul M,
      2. Xu L,
      3. Wald M, et al
      . Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States. Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations and Deaths 2002–2006. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010.
    2. ↵
      Key facts and statistics. https://www.headway.org.uk/key-facts-and-statistics.aspx (accessed 03 Nov 2015).
    3. ↵
      1. Fuller G,
      2. Bouamra O,
      3. Woodford M, et al
      . Temporal trends in head injury outcomes from 2003 to 2009 in England and Wales. Br J Neurosurg 2011;25:414–21. doi:10.3109/02688697.2011.570882
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Hayward P
      . Traumatic brain injury: the signature of modern conflicts. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:200–1. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70032-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Kochanek P,
      2. Berger R,
      3. Bayir H, et al
      . Biomarkers of primary and evolving damage in traumatic and ischemic brain injury: diagnosis, prognosis, probing mechanisms, and therapeutic decision making. Curr Opin Crit Care 2008;14:135–41. doi:10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282f57564
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:89–95. doi:10.1067/mcp.2001.113989
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Bakay R,
      2. Sweeney K,
      3. Wood J
      . Pathophysiology of cerebrospinalfluid in headinjury: Part2. Biochemicalmarkers for central nervous system trauma. Neurosurgery 1986;18:376–82. doi:10.1227/00006123-198603000-00026
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Ingebrigtsen T,
      2. Romner B
      . Biochemical serum markers of traumatic brain injury. J Trauma 2002;52:798–808. doi:10.1097/00005373-200204000-00038
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Svetlov S,
      2. Larner S,
      3. Kirk D, et al
      . Biomarkers of blast-induced neurotrauma: profiling molecular and cellular mechanisms of blast brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2009;26:913–21. doi:10.1089/neu.2008.0609
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Li J,
      2. Li X,
      3. Feng D, et al
      . Biomarkers associated with diffuse traumatic axonal injury: Exploring pathogenesis, early diagnosis, and prognosis. J Trauma 2010;69:1610–18. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181f5a9ed
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Aronson JK
      . Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005;59:491–4. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02435.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Saatman K,
      2. Duhaime A,
      3. Bullock R, et al
      . Classification of traumatic brain injury for targeted therapies. J Neurotrauma 2008;25:719–38. doi:10.1089/neu.2008.0586
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Bakay R,
      2. Ward A
      . Enzymatic changes in serum and cerebrospinal fluid in neurological injury. J Neurosurg 1983;58:27–37. doi:10.3171/jns.1983.58.1.0027
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Robinson N
      . Some properties of human cerebral lactate dehydrogenase. Clin Chim Acta 1965;11:293–7. doi:10.1016/0009-8981(65)90219-6
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Lindblom U,
      2. Vrethammar T,
      3. Aberg B
      . [Isoenzymes of lactic acid dehydrogenase in brain damage] [Article in Swedish]. Nord Med 1967;77:337–40.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Kaste M,
      2. Hernesniemi J,
      3. Somer H, et al
      . Creatine kinase isoenzymes in acute brain injury. J Neurosurg 1981;55:511–5. doi:10.3171/jns.1981.55.4.0511
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Rabow L,
      2. Hedman G
      . CKBB-isoenzymes as a sign of cerebral injury. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1979;28:108–12.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Kärkelä J,
      2. Bock E,
      3. Kaukinen S
      . CSF and serum brain- specific creatine kinase isoenzyme (CK- BB), neuron- specific enolase (NSE) and neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM) as prognostic markers for hypoxic brain injury after cardiac arrest in man. J Neurol Sci 116:100–9. doi:10.1016/0022-510X(93)90095-G
    19. ↵
      1. Sen J,
      2. Belli A
      . S100B in neuropathologic states: the CRP of the brain? J Neurosci Res 2007;85:1373–80. doi:10.1002/jnr.21211
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Moore BW,
      2. Mcgregor D
      . Chromatographic and electrophoretic fractionation of soluble proteins of brain and liver. J Biol Chem 1965;240:1647–53.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Strathmann FG,
      2. Schulte S,
      3. Goerl K, et al
      . Blood-based biomarkers for traumatic brain injury: evaluation of research approaches, available methods and potential utility from the clinician and clinical laboratory perspectives. Clin Biochem 2014;47:876–88. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.01.028
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Pelinka LE,
      2. Kroepfl A,
      3. Schmidhammer H, et al
      . Glial fibrillary acidic protein in serum after traumatic brain injury and multiple trauma. J Trauma 2004;57:1006–12. doi:10.1097/01.TA.0000108998.48026.C3
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Berger R,
      2. Adelson P,
      3. Pierce M, et al
      . Serum neuron-specific enolase, S100B, and myelin basic protein concentrations after inflicted and noninflicted traumatic brain injury in children. J Neurosurg 2005;103:61–8. doi:10.3171/ped.2005.103.1.0061
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Korfias S,
      2. Stranjalis G,
      3. Boviatsis E, et al
      . Serum S-100B protein monitoring in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Intensive Care Med 2007;33:255–60. doi:10.1007/s00134-006-0463-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Kövesdi E,
      2. Lückl J,
      3. Bukovics P, et al
      . Update on protein biomarkers in traumatic brain injury with emphasis on clinical use in adults and pediatrics. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 152:1–17. doi:10.1007/s00701-009-0463-6
    26. ↵
      1. Mrozek S,
      2. Geeraerts T,
      3. Dumurgier J, et al
      . Biomarkers and acute brain injuries: interest and limits. Crit Care 2014;24:220. doi:10.1186/cc13841
      OpenUrl
    27. ↵
      1. Bazarian J,
      2. Zemlan F,
      3. Mookerjee S, et al
      . Serum S-100B and cleaved-tau are poor predictors of long-term outcome after mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2006;20:759–65. doi:10.1080/02699050500488207
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Link H,
      2. Tibbling G
      . Principles of albumin and IgG analyses in neurological disorders. III. Evaluation of IgG synthesis within the central nervous system in multiple sclerosis. Scan J Clin Lab Invest 1977;37:397–401. doi:10.3109/00365517709091498
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Kleindienst A,
      2. Ross Bullock M
      . A critical analysis of the role of the neurotrophic protein S100B in acute brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2006;23:1185–200. doi:10.1089/neu.2006.23.1185
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Zetterberg H,
      2. Smith D,
      3. Blennow K
      . Biomarkers of mild traumatic brain injury in cerebrospinal fluid and blood. Nat Rev Neurol 2013;9:201–10. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2013.9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Zurek J
      . The usefulness of S100B, NSE, GFAP, NF-H, secretagogin and hSP70 as a predictive biomarker of outcome in children with traumatic brain injury. Eur J Neurol 2012;18:311.
      OpenUrl
    32. ↵
      1. Meric E,
      2. Gunduz A,
      3. Turedi S, et al
      . The prognostic value of neuron-specific enolase in head trauma patients. J Emerg Med 2010;38:297–301. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.11.032
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Berger RP,
      2. Dulani T,
      3. Adelson PD, et al
      . Identification of inflicted traumatic brain injury in well-appearing infants using serum and cerebrospinal markers: a possible screening tool. Pediatrics 2006;117:325–32. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0711
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Topolovec-Vranic J,
      2. Pollmann-Mudryj M-A,
      3. Ouchterlony D, et al
      . The value of serum biomarkers in prediction models of outcome after mild traumatic brain injury. J Trauma 2011;71:S478–86. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318232fa70
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Böhmer A,
      2. Oses J,
      3. Schmidt A, et al
      . Neuron-specific enolase, S100B, and glial fibrillary acidic protein levels as outcome predictors in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Neurosurgery 2011;68:1624–30. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e318214a81f
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Johnsson P
      . Markers of cerebral ischemia after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 1996;10:120–6. doi:10.1016/S1053-0770(96)80187-X
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Pelinka L,
      2. Toegel E,
      3. Mauritz W, et al
      . Serum S 100 B: a marker of brain damage in traumatic brain injury with and without multiple trauma. Shock 2003;19:195–200. doi:10.1097/00024382-200303000-00001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Eng L,
      2. Vanderhaeghen J,
      3. Bignami A, et al
      . An acidic protein isolated from fibrous astrocytes. Brain Res 1971;28:351–4. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(71)90668-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Mondello S,
      2. Papa L,
      3. Buki A, et al
      . Neuronal and glial markers are differently associated with computed tomography findings and outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a case control study. Crit Care 2011;15:R156.doi:10.1186/cc10286
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Ost M,
      2. Nylén K,
      3. Csajbok L, et al
      . Initial CSF total tau correlates with 1-year outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury. Neurology 2006;67:1600–4. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000242732.06714.0f
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Wang K,
      2. Posmantur R,
      3. Nath R, et al
      . Simultaneous degradation of alphaII- and betaII-spectrin by caspase 3 (CPP32) in apoptotic cells. J Biol Chem 1998;273:22490–7. doi:10.1074/jbc.273.35.22490
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      1. Pike B,
      2. Zhao X,
      3. Newcomb J, et al
      . Regional calpain and caspase-3 proteolysis of alpha-spectrin after traumatic brain injury. Neuroreport 1998;9:2437–42. doi:10.1097/00001756-199808030-00002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. Pineda J,
      2. Wang K,
      3. Hayes R
      . Biomarkers of proteolytic damage following traumatic brain injury. Brain Pathol 2004;14:202–9. doi:10.1111/j.1750-3639.2004.tb00054.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      1. Ringger N,
      2. O'Steen B,
      3. Brabham J, et al
      . A novel marker for traumatic brain injury: CSF alphaII-spectrin breakdown product levels. J Neurotrauma 2004;21:1443–56. doi:10.1089/neu.2004.21.1443
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. Farkas O,
      2. Polgár B,
      3. Szekeres-Barthó J, et al
      . Spectrin breakdown products in the cerebrospinal fluid in severe head injury—preliminary observations. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2005;147:855–61. doi:10.1007/s00701-005-0559-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Brophy G,
      2. Pineda J,
      3. Papa L, et al
      . αII-Spectrin breakdown product cerebrospinal fluid exposure metrics suggest differences in cellular injury mechanisms after severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2009;4:471–9. doi:10.1089/neu.2008.0657
      OpenUrl
    47. ↵
      1. Pineda J,
      2. Lewis S,
      3. Valadka A, et al
      . Clinical significance of alphaII-spectrin breakdown products in cerebrospinal fluid after severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2007;24:354–66. doi:10.1089/neu.2006.003789
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Zemlan F,
      2. Jauch EC,
      3. Mulchahey J, et al
      . C-tau biomarker of neuronal damage in severe brain injured patients: association with elevated intracranial pressure and clinical outcome. Brain Res 2002;947:131–9. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(02)02920-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    49. ↵
      1. Gabbita S,
      2. Scheff S,
      3. Menard R, et al
      . Cleaved-tau: a biomarker of neuronal damage after traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2005;22:83–94. doi:10.1089/neu.2005.22.83
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      1. Kühn J,
      2. Meissner C,
      3. Oehmichen M
      . Microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP2)—a promising approach to diagnosis of forensic types of hypoxia-ischemia. Acta Neuropathol 2005;110:579–86. doi:10.1007/s00401-005-1090-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Mondello S,
      2. Gabrielli A,
      3. Catani S, et al
      . Increased levels of serum MAP-2 at 6-months correlate with improved outcome in survivors of severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2012;26:1629–35. doi:10.3109/02699052.2012.700083
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Van Geel WJA,
      2. Verbeek LE,
      3. Rosengren MM, et al
      . An enzyme immunoassay to quantify neurofilament light chain in cerebrospinal fluid. J Immunol Methods 2005;296:179–85. doi:10.1016/j.jim.2004.11.015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      1. Anderson K,
      2. Scheff S,
      3. Miller K, et al
      . The phosphorylated axonal form of the neurofilament subunit NF-H (pNF-H) as a blood biomarker of traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2008;25:1079–85. doi:10.1089/neu.2007.0488
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. ↵
      1. Lucas SM,
      2. Rothwell N,
      3. Gibson RM
      . The role of inflammation in CNS injury and disease. Br J Pharmacol 2006;147(Suppl 1):S232–40. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0706400
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Hayakata T,
      2. Shiozaki T,
      3. Tasaki O, et al
      . Changes in CSF S100B and cytokine concentrations in early-phase severe traumatic brain injury. Shock 2004;22:102–7. doi:10.1097/01.shk.0000131193.80038.f1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Shiozaki T,
      2. Hayakata T,
      3. Tasaki O, et al
      . Cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of anti-inflammatory mediators in early-phase severe traumatic brain injury. Shock 2005;23:406–10. doi:10.1097/01.shk.0000161385.62758.24
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Hergenroeder GW,
      2. Ward NH III.,
      3. Clifton GL, et al
      . Serum IL- 6: a candidate biomarker for intracranial pressure elevation following isolated traumatic brain injury. J Neuroinflammation 2010;11:19. doi:10.1186/1742-2094-7-19
      OpenUrl
    58. ↵
      1. Liu MC,
      2. Akinyi L,
      3. Scharf D, et al
      . Ubiquitin C- terminal hydrolase-L1 as a biomarker for ischemic and traumatic brain injury in rats. Eur J Neurosci 2012;31:722–32. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07097.x
      OpenUrl
    59. ↵
      1. Brophy G,
      2. Mondello S,
      3. Papa L, et al
      . Biokinetic analysis of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) in severe traumatic brain injury patient biofluids. J Neurotrauma 2011;28:861–70. doi:10.1089/neu.2010.1564
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      1. Papa L,
      2. Lewis L,
      3. Silvestri S, et al
      . Serum levels of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase distinguish mild traumatic brain injury from trauma controls and are elevated in mild and moderate traumatic brain injury patients with intracranial lesions and neurosurgical intervention. J Trauma Acute Crea Surg 2012;72:335–1344.
      OpenUrl
    61. ↵
      1. Cunningham O,
      2. Campion S,
      3. Perry V, et al
      . Microglia and the urokinase plasminogen activator receptor/uPA system in innate brain inflammation. Glia 2009;57:1802–14. doi:10.1002/glia.20892
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. Yu L,
      2. Wu XL,
      3. Wang H, et al
      . Diagnostic and prognostic significance of suPAR in traumatic brain injury. Neurol India 2014;62:498–502. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.144439
      OpenUrlPubMed
    63. ↵
      No author listed. Grappling with traumatic brain injury. Lancet 2007;370:1879. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61785-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Ling G,
      2. Bandak F,
      3. Armonda R, et al
      . Explosive blast neurotrauma. J Neurotrauma 2009;26:815–25. doi:10.1089/neu.2007.0484
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    65. ↵
      1. Pham N,
      2. Sawyer T,
      3. Wang Y, et al
      . Primary blast-induced traumatic brain injury in rats leads to increased prion protein in plasma: a potential biomarker for blast-induced traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2015;32:58–65. doi:10.1089/neu.2014.3471
      OpenUrlPubMed
    66. ↵
      1. Pham N,
      2. Akonasu H,
      3. Shishkin R, et al
      . Plasma soluble prion protein, a potential biomarker for sport-related concussions: a pilot study. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0117286. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117286
      OpenUrlPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Papa L,
      2. Ramia M,
      3. Edwards D, et al
      . Systematic Review of Clinical Studies Examining Biomarkers of Brain Injury in Athletes after Sports-Related Concussion. J Neurotrauma 2015;32:661–73.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Forde C,
      2. Karri S,
      3. Young A, et al
      . Predictive markers in traumatic brain injury: opportunities for a serum biosignature. Br J Neurosurg 2014;28:8–15. doi:10.3109/02688697.2013.815317
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      Guidelines Development Group. Head Injury. Triage, assessment, investigation and early management of head injury in children, young people and adults. Guidelines partial update. London: National Institue for Health and Care Excellence, 2014. Report No: CG 176.
    70. ↵
      1. Lööv C,
      2. Nadadhur A,
      3. Hillered L, et al
      . Extracellular ezrin: a novel biomarker for traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2015;32:244–51. doi:10.1089/neu.2014.3517
      OpenUrlPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Friedman A,
      2. Bar-Klein G,
      3. Serlin Y, et al
      . Should losartan be administered following brain injury? Expert Rev Neurother 2014;14:1365–75. doi:10.1586/14737175.2014.972945
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Contributors ET: significant contribution to design, content, write up and revisions. SH: significant contribution to conception, content design and revisions. TB: significant contribution to conception, content and revision. All authors gave final approval prior to submission of this article.

    • Funding AB and ET are salaried employees of the NIHR SRMRC. No external or commercial funds contributed to the development of this review.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.