BACKGROUND: Mass spectrometric assays could potentially replace protein immunoassays in many applications. Previous studies have demonstrated the utility of liquid chromatography-multiple-reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (LC-MRM/MS) for the quantification of proteins in biological samples, and many examples of the accuracy of these approaches to quantify supplemented analytes have been reported. However, a direct comparison of multiplexed assays that use LC-MRM/MS with established immunoassays to measure endogenous proteins has not been reported. METHODS: We purified HDL from the plasma of 30 human donors and used label-free shotgun proteomics approaches to analyze each sample. We then developed 2 different isotope-dilution LC-MRM/MS 6-plex assays (for apoliporoteins A-I, C-II, C-III, E, B, and J): 1 assay used stable isotope-labeled peptides and the other used stable isotope-labeled apolipoprotein A-I (an abundant HDL protein) as an internal standard to control for matrix effects and mass spectrometer performance. The shotgun and LC-MRM/MS assays were then compared with commercially available immunoassays for each of the 6 analytes. RESULTS: Relative quantification by shotgun proteomics approaches correlated poorly with the 6 protein immunoassays. In contrast, the isotope dilution LC-MRM/MS approaches showed correlations with immunoassays of r = 0.61-0.96. The LC-MRM/MS approaches had acceptable reproducibility (<13% CV) and linearity (r ≥0.99). Strikingly, a single protein internal standard applied to all proteins performed as well as multiple protein-specific peptide internal standards. CONCLUSIONS: Because peak area ratios measured in multiplexed LC-MRM/MS assays correlate well with immunochemical measurements and have acceptable operating characteristics, we propose that LC-MRM/MS could be used to replace immunoassays in a variety of settings.
BACKGROUND: Mass spectrometric assays could potentially replace protein immunoassays in many applications. Previous studies have demonstrated the utility of liquid chromatography-multiple-reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (LC-MRM/MS) for the quantification of proteins in biological samples, and many examples of the accuracy of these approaches to quantify supplemented analytes have been reported. However, a direct comparison of multiplexed assays that use LC-MRM/MS with established immunoassays to measure endogenous proteins has not been reported. METHODS: We purified HDL from the plasma of 30 human donors and used label-free shotgun proteomics approaches to analyze each sample. We then developed 2 different isotope-dilution LC-MRM/MS 6-plex assays (for apoliporoteins A-I, C-II, C-III, E, B, and J): 1 assay used stable isotope-labeled peptides and the other used stable isotope-labeled apolipoprotein A-I (an abundant HDL protein) as an internal standard to control for matrix effects and mass spectrometer performance. The shotgun and LC-MRM/MS assays were then compared with commercially available immunoassays for each of the 6 analytes. RESULTS: Relative quantification by shotgun proteomics approaches correlated poorly with the 6 protein immunoassays. In contrast, the isotope dilution LC-MRM/MS approaches showed correlations with immunoassays of r = 0.61-0.96. The LC-MRM/MS approaches had acceptable reproducibility (<13% CV) and linearity (r ≥0.99). Strikingly, a single protein internal standard applied to all proteins performed as well as multiple protein-specific peptide internal standards. CONCLUSIONS: Because peak area ratios measured in multiplexed LC-MRM/MS assays correlate well with immunochemical measurements and have acceptable operating characteristics, we propose that LC-MRM/MS could be used to replace immunoassays in a variety of settings.
Authors: Tomas Vaisar; Subramaniam Pennathur; Pattie S Green; Sina A Gharib; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Marian C Cheung; Jaeman Byun; Simona Vuletic; Sean Kassim; Pragya Singh; Helen Chea; Robert H Knopp; John Brunzell; Randolph Geary; Alan Chait; Xue-Qiao Zhao; Keith Elkon; Santica Marcovina; Paul Ridker; John F Oram; Jay W Heinecke Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: N Leigh Anderson; Norman G Anderson; Terry W Pearson; Christoph H Borchers; Amanda G Paulovich; Scott D Patterson; Michael Gillette; Ruedi Aebersold; Steven A Carr Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2009-01-07 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Terri A Addona; Susan E Abbatiello; Birgit Schilling; Steven J Skates; D R Mani; David M Bunk; Clifford H Spiegelman; Lisa J Zimmerman; Amy-Joan L Ham; Hasmik Keshishian; Steven C Hall; Simon Allen; Ronald K Blackman; Christoph H Borchers; Charles Buck; Helene L Cardasis; Michael P Cusack; Nathan G Dodder; Bradford W Gibson; Jason M Held; Tara Hiltke; Angela Jackson; Eric B Johansen; Christopher R Kinsinger; Jing Li; Mehdi Mesri; Thomas A Neubert; Richard K Niles; Trenton C Pulsipher; David Ransohoff; Henry Rodriguez; Paul A Rudnick; Derek Smith; David L Tabb; Tony J Tegeler; Asokan M Variyath; Lorenzo J Vega-Montoto; Asa Wahlander; Sofia Waldemarson; Mu Wang; Jeffrey R Whiteaker; Lei Zhao; N Leigh Anderson; Susan J Fisher; Daniel C Liebler; Amanda G Paulovich; Fred E Regnier; Paul Tempst; Steven A Carr Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2009-06-28 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Amit V Khera; Marina Cuchel; Margarita de la Llera-Moya; Amrith Rodrigues; Megan F Burke; Kashif Jafri; Benjamin C French; Julie A Phillips; Megan L Mucksavage; Robert L Wilensky; Emile R Mohler; George H Rothblat; Daniel J Rader Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pattie S Green; Tomas Vaisar; Subramaniam Pennathur; J Jacob Kulstad; Andrew B Moore; Santica Marcovina; John Brunzell; Robert H Knopp; Xue-Qiao Zhao; Jay W Heinecke Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Judit Marsillach; Jessica O Becker; Tomas Vaisar; Bevra H Hahn; John D Brunzell; Clement E Furlong; Ian H de Boer; Maureen A McMahon; Andrew N Hoofnagle Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Andrzej Witkowski; Gary K L Chan; Jennifer C Boatz; Nancy J Li; Ayuka P Inoue; Jaclyn C Wong; Patrick C A van der Wel; Giorgio Cavigiolio Journal: FASEB J Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Yi Chen; Kate J Fisher; Mark Lloyd; Elizabeth R Wood; Domenico Coppola; Erin Siegel; David Shibata; Yian A Chen; John M Koomen Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2017
Authors: Una L Kelly; Daniel Grigsby; Martha A Cady; Michael Landowski; Nikolai P Skiba; Jian Liu; Alan T Remaley; Mikael Klingeborn; Catherine Bowes Rickman Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Sven van Eijl; Zheying Zhu; John Cupitt; Magdalena Gierula; Christine Götz; Ellen Fritsche; Robert J Edwards Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Veronika A Glukhova; Daniela M Tomazela; Geoffrey D Findlay; Raymond J Monnat; Michael J MacCoss Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 4.466