Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies

Publication ,  Journal Article
Raffield, LM; Dang, H; Pratte, KA; Jacobson, S; Gillenwater, LA; Ampleford, E; Barjaktarevic, I; Basta, P; Clish, CB; Comellas, AP; Cornell, E ...
Published in: Proteomics
June 1, 2020

Novel proteomics platforms, such as the aptamer-based SOMAscan platform, can quantify large numbers of proteins efficiently and cost-effectively and are rapidly growing in popularity. However, comparisons to conventional immunoassays remain underexplored, leaving investigators unsure when cross-assay comparisons are appropriate. The correlation of results from immunoassays with relative protein quantification is explored by SOMAscan. For 63 proteins assessed in two chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cohorts, subpopulations and intermediate outcome measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS), and COPDGene, using myriad rules based medicine multiplex immunoassays and SOMAscan, Spearman correlation coefficients range from −0.13 to 0.97, with a median correlation coefficient of ≈0.5 and consistent results across cohorts. A similar range is observed for immunoassays in the population-based Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and for other assays in COPDGene and SPIROMICS. Comparisons of relative quantification from the antibody-based Olink platform and SOMAscan in a small cohort of myocardial infarction patients also show a wide correlation range. Finally, cis pQTL data, mass spectrometry aptamer confirmation, and other publicly available data are integrated to assess relationships with observed correlations. Correlation between proteomics assays shows a wide range and should be carefully considered when comparing and meta-analyzing proteomics data across assays and studies.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Proteomics

DOI

EISSN

1615-9861

ISSN

1615-9853

Publication Date

June 1, 2020

Volume

20

Issue

12

Related Subject Headings

  • Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
  • 31 Biological sciences
  • 11 Medical and Health Sciences
  • 08 Information and Computing Sciences
  • 06 Biological Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Raffield, L. M., Dang, H., Pratte, K. A., Jacobson, S., Gillenwater, L. A., Ampleford, E., … Bowler, R. P. (2020). Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies. Proteomics, 20(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201900278
Raffield, L. M., H. Dang, K. A. Pratte, S. Jacobson, L. A. Gillenwater, E. Ampleford, I. Barjaktarevic, et al. “Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies.” Proteomics 20, no. 12 (June 1, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201900278.
Raffield LM, Dang H, Pratte KA, Jacobson S, Gillenwater LA, Ampleford E, et al. Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies. Proteomics. 2020 Jun 1;20(12).
Raffield, L. M., et al. “Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies.” Proteomics, vol. 20, no. 12, June 2020. Scopus, doi:10.1002/pmic.201900278.
Raffield LM, Dang H, Pratte KA, Jacobson S, Gillenwater LA, Ampleford E, Barjaktarevic I, Basta P, Clish CB, Comellas AP, Cornell E, Curtis JL, Doerschuk C, Durda P, Emson C, Freeman CM, Guo X, Hastie AT, Hawkins GA, Herrera J, Johnson WC, Labaki WW, Liu Y, Masters B, Miller M, Ortega VE, Papanicolaou G, Peters S, Taylor KD, Rich SS, Rotter JI, Auer P, Reiner AP, Tracy RP, Ngo D, Gerszten RE, O’Neal WK, Bowler RP. Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies. Proteomics. 2020 Jun 1;20(12).
Journal cover image

Published In

Proteomics

DOI

EISSN

1615-9861

ISSN

1615-9853

Publication Date

June 1, 2020

Volume

20

Issue

12

Related Subject Headings

  • Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
  • 31 Biological sciences
  • 11 Medical and Health Sciences
  • 08 Information and Computing Sciences
  • 06 Biological Sciences