Technical Evaluation of Plasma Proteomics Technologies.

IF 3.8 2区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
William F Beimers, Katherine A Overmyer, Pavel Sinitcyn, Noah M Lancaster, Scott T Quarmby, Joshua J Coon
{"title":"Technical Evaluation of Plasma Proteomics Technologies.","authors":"William F Beimers, Katherine A Overmyer, Pavel Sinitcyn, Noah M Lancaster, Scott T Quarmby, Joshua J Coon","doi":"10.1021/acs.jproteome.5c00221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Plasma proteomics technologies are rapidly evolving and of critical importance to the field of biomedical research. Here, we report a technical evaluation of six notable plasma proteomics technologies─unenriched (Neat), acid depletion, PreOmics ENRICHplus, Mag-Net, Seer Proteograph XT, and Olink Explore HT. The methods were compared on proteomic depth, reproducibility, linearity, tolerance to lipid interference, and limit of detection/quantification. In total, we performed 618 LC-MS/MS experiments and 93 Olink Explore HT assays. The Seer method achieved the greatest proteomic depth (∼4500 proteins detected), while Olink detected ∼2600 proteins. Other MS-based methods ranged from ∼500-2200 proteins detected. In our analysis, Neat, Mag-Net, Seer, and Olink had good reproducibility, while PreOmics and Acid had higher variability (>20% median coefficient of variation). All MS methods showed good linearity with spiked-in C-reactive protein (CRP); CRP was surprisingly not in the Olink assay. None of the methods were affected by lipid interference. Seer produced the highest number of quantifiable proteins with a measurable LOD (4407) and LOQ (2696). Olink had the next highest number of quantifiable proteins, with 2002 having an LOD and 1883 having an LOQ. Finally, we tested the applicability of these methods for detecting differences between healthy and cancer groups in a nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort. All six methods detected differentially abundant proteins between the cancer and healthy samples but disagreed on which proteins were significant, highlighting the contrast between each method.</p>","PeriodicalId":48,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Proteome Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Proteome Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5c00221","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Plasma proteomics technologies are rapidly evolving and of critical importance to the field of biomedical research. Here, we report a technical evaluation of six notable plasma proteomics technologies─unenriched (Neat), acid depletion, PreOmics ENRICHplus, Mag-Net, Seer Proteograph XT, and Olink Explore HT. The methods were compared on proteomic depth, reproducibility, linearity, tolerance to lipid interference, and limit of detection/quantification. In total, we performed 618 LC-MS/MS experiments and 93 Olink Explore HT assays. The Seer method achieved the greatest proteomic depth (∼4500 proteins detected), while Olink detected ∼2600 proteins. Other MS-based methods ranged from ∼500-2200 proteins detected. In our analysis, Neat, Mag-Net, Seer, and Olink had good reproducibility, while PreOmics and Acid had higher variability (>20% median coefficient of variation). All MS methods showed good linearity with spiked-in C-reactive protein (CRP); CRP was surprisingly not in the Olink assay. None of the methods were affected by lipid interference. Seer produced the highest number of quantifiable proteins with a measurable LOD (4407) and LOQ (2696). Olink had the next highest number of quantifiable proteins, with 2002 having an LOD and 1883 having an LOQ. Finally, we tested the applicability of these methods for detecting differences between healthy and cancer groups in a nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort. All six methods detected differentially abundant proteins between the cancer and healthy samples but disagreed on which proteins were significant, highlighting the contrast between each method.

血浆蛋白质组学技术评价
血浆蛋白质组学技术正在迅速发展,对生物医学研究领域至关重要。在这里,我们报告了六种著名的血浆蛋白质组学技术的技术评估──unenrichment (Neat)、acid depletion、PreOmics enrichment plus、magnet - net、Seer Proteograph XT和Olink Explore HT。比较了两种方法的蛋白质组学深度、重现性、线性、对脂质干扰的耐受性和检测/定量限。我们总共进行了618次LC-MS/MS实验和93次Olink Explore HT实验。Seer方法获得了最大的蛋白质组学深度(检测到约4500个蛋白质),而Olink方法检测到约2600个蛋白质。其他基于质谱的方法检测到的蛋白质范围为~ 500-2200。在我们的分析中,Neat、magnet - net、Seer和Olink具有良好的重复性,而PreOmics和Acid具有较高的变异性(变异系数中位数为20%)。所有的质谱方法与c反应蛋白(CRP)呈良好的线性关系;令人惊讶的是,在Olink试验中没有发现CRP。两种方法均不受脂质干扰。Seer产生的可量化蛋白数量最多,LOD(4407)和LOQ(2696)均可测量。Olink的可量化蛋白质数量第二高,2002年有LOD, 1883年有LOQ。最后,我们测试了这些方法在非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)队列中检测健康组和癌症组之间差异的适用性。所有六种方法都检测到癌症样本和健康样本之间蛋白质含量的差异,但在哪些蛋白质含量显著方面存在分歧,这突显了每种方法之间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Proteome Research
Journal of Proteome Research 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
251
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Proteome Research publishes content encompassing all aspects of global protein analysis and function, including the dynamic aspects of genomics, spatio-temporal proteomics, metabonomics and metabolomics, clinical and agricultural proteomics, as well as advances in methodology including bioinformatics. The theme and emphasis is on a multidisciplinary approach to the life sciences through the synergy between the different types of "omics".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信