Sara Taleb, Nisha Stephan, Sareena Chennakkandathil, Muhammad Umar Sohail, Sondos Yousef, Hina Sarwath, Muna Al-Noubi, Karsten Suhre, Ali Ait Hssain, Frank Schmidt
{"title":"Olink-PEA与Alamar-NULISA蛋白组学技术在COVID-19危重患者队列中的应用比较分析","authors":"Sara Taleb, Nisha Stephan, Sareena Chennakkandathil, Muhammad Umar Sohail, Sondos Yousef, Hina Sarwath, Muna Al-Noubi, Karsten Suhre, Ali Ait Hssain, Frank Schmidt","doi":"10.1002/pmic.202400456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aim to verify and validate low-abundant plasma proteins from severe COVID-19 cases and controls through a comparative analysis between Olink and Alamar performances. Eighty-three severe cases and 44 controls were measured for proteomics using three Olink panels and one Alamar panel, which share 94 targets. CV, pairwise correlation of intensity signals, and detectability range were compared across platforms. Statistical comparisons were performed using FDR-adjusted linear models with age as a covariate to construct differential protein abundance volcano plots between cases and controls per platform and heatmaps between our cohort and five public cohorts. Overall, pairwise comparisons (n = 94) showed strong correlations among cases (r = 0.82) and controls (r = 0.7). 60/94 proteins had mutual significance on both platforms; of which 54 showed concordant effect direction, and six showed opposite effect direction (IL-6R, IL-1R2, KITLG, TSLP, IL-17C, and IL-4R). Alamar verified 80 and 60 targets from cases and controls, respectively, along with 54 differential proteins from Olink. Compared to public cohorts measured by Olink, our Olink data showed consistent findings from 28 proteins, of which 27 were validated by Alamar.</p>","PeriodicalId":224,"journal":{"name":"Proteomics","volume":" ","pages":"e202400456"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis Between Olink-PEA and Alamar-NULISA Proteomic Technologies Applied to a Critically Ill COVID-19 Cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Taleb, Nisha Stephan, Sareena Chennakkandathil, Muhammad Umar Sohail, Sondos Yousef, Hina Sarwath, Muna Al-Noubi, Karsten Suhre, Ali Ait Hssain, Frank Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pmic.202400456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We aim to verify and validate low-abundant plasma proteins from severe COVID-19 cases and controls through a comparative analysis between Olink and Alamar performances. Eighty-three severe cases and 44 controls were measured for proteomics using three Olink panels and one Alamar panel, which share 94 targets. CV, pairwise correlation of intensity signals, and detectability range were compared across platforms. Statistical comparisons were performed using FDR-adjusted linear models with age as a covariate to construct differential protein abundance volcano plots between cases and controls per platform and heatmaps between our cohort and five public cohorts. Overall, pairwise comparisons (n = 94) showed strong correlations among cases (r = 0.82) and controls (r = 0.7). 60/94 proteins had mutual significance on both platforms; of which 54 showed concordant effect direction, and six showed opposite effect direction (IL-6R, IL-1R2, KITLG, TSLP, IL-17C, and IL-4R). Alamar verified 80 and 60 targets from cases and controls, respectively, along with 54 differential proteins from Olink. Compared to public cohorts measured by Olink, our Olink data showed consistent findings from 28 proteins, of which 27 were validated by Alamar.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proteomics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e202400456\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proteomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.202400456\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proteomics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.202400456","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative Analysis Between Olink-PEA and Alamar-NULISA Proteomic Technologies Applied to a Critically Ill COVID-19 Cohort.
We aim to verify and validate low-abundant plasma proteins from severe COVID-19 cases and controls through a comparative analysis between Olink and Alamar performances. Eighty-three severe cases and 44 controls were measured for proteomics using three Olink panels and one Alamar panel, which share 94 targets. CV, pairwise correlation of intensity signals, and detectability range were compared across platforms. Statistical comparisons were performed using FDR-adjusted linear models with age as a covariate to construct differential protein abundance volcano plots between cases and controls per platform and heatmaps between our cohort and five public cohorts. Overall, pairwise comparisons (n = 94) showed strong correlations among cases (r = 0.82) and controls (r = 0.7). 60/94 proteins had mutual significance on both platforms; of which 54 showed concordant effect direction, and six showed opposite effect direction (IL-6R, IL-1R2, KITLG, TSLP, IL-17C, and IL-4R). Alamar verified 80 and 60 targets from cases and controls, respectively, along with 54 differential proteins from Olink. Compared to public cohorts measured by Olink, our Olink data showed consistent findings from 28 proteins, of which 27 were validated by Alamar.
期刊介绍:
PROTEOMICS is the premier international source for information on all aspects of applications and technologies, including software, in proteomics and other "omics". The journal includes but is not limited to proteomics, genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics and lipidomics, and systems biology approaches. Papers describing novel applications of proteomics and integration of multi-omics data and approaches are especially welcome.