Abstract
Since the discovery of the neuron-specific protein by Moore and McGregor in 1965, tens of thousands of studies have investigated the basic and applied significance of neuron-specific enolase (NSE). This promising biomarker, according to many researchers, has not found widespread use in clinical practice, particularly in acute cerebrovascular accidents. Moreover, the several studies refuting the usefulness of serum NSE measurement in critically ill patients leads us to consider the reasons for such contradictory conclusions. In this article, we have analyzed the main directions in the study of NSE and expressed our perspective on the reasons for the contradictory results and the difficulties in implementing the results of these studies in clinical practice. In our opinion, the method of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) used in the majority of the studies is inappropriate for the evaluation of NSE as a marker of central nervous system damage, because it does not allow for the differentiation of heterodimers of enolases and the assessment of the enzymatic activity of this group of enzymatic proteins. Therefore, the methodological approach for the evaluation of NSE (γγ-enolase) as a biomarker needs to be elaborated and improved. Furthermore, the specificity of the applied research methods and the appropriateness of the continued use of the term "neuron-specific enolase" must be addressed.