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

IF 3.4 4区 生物学 Q2 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Proteomics Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1002/pmic.202400456
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们旨在通过对比分析Olink和Alamar的性能,验证和验证来自COVID-19重症病例和对照组的低丰度血浆蛋白。使用三个Olink面板和一个Alamar面板对83例重症病例和44例对照组进行了蛋白质组学测量,它们共有94个靶点。比较了不同平台间强度信号的CV、两两相关和检测范围。使用fdr校正线性模型进行统计比较,年龄作为协变量,构建每个平台病例和对照组之间的差异蛋白质丰度火山图,以及我们的队列和五个公共队列之间的热图。总的来说,两两比较(n = 94)显示病例(r = 0.82)和对照组(r = 0.7)之间有很强的相关性。60/94蛋白在两个平台上具有互显著性;其中作用方向一致的54个,相反的6个(IL-6R、IL-1R2、KITLG、TSLP、IL-17C、IL-4R)。Alamar分别验证了来自病例和对照组的80个和60个靶标,以及来自Olink的54个差异蛋白。与Olink测量的公共队列相比,我们的Olink数据显示了28种蛋白质的一致发现,其中27种由Alamar验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Proteomics
Proteomics 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
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