Proteomic Analyses of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Plasma Highlight Cartilage Acidic Protein 1 as a Candidate for Preclinical Screening

BACKGROUND: Stratification is required to ensure that only patients likely to benefit receive autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). It would be advantageous to identify biomarkers to predict ACI outcome that are measurable in blood, avoiding the need for an invasive synovial fluid harvest. PURPOSE: To assess if proteomic analyses can be used to identify novel candidate blood biomarkers in individuals who respond well or poorly to ACI. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Isobaric tagging for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) mass spectrometry was used to assess the proteome in plasma pooled from ACI responders (mean Lysholm improvement after ACI, 33; n = 10) or nonresponders (mean, −13; n = 10), collected at the time of surgery for cartilage harvest (stage 1) or implantation of culture-expanded chondrocytes (stage 2). An alternative proteomic method, label-free quantitation liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, was used to analyze plasma samples (majority matched to iTRAQ) individually. Differentially abundant proteins (±2.0-fold) were analyzed from both proteomic data sets, and markers of interest identified via pooled iTRAQ were validated via immunoassay of individual samples. RESULTS: Protein differences could be detected in the plasma preoperatively between ACI responders and nonresponders (16 proteins; ≥±2.0-fold change; P < .05) using iTRAQ proteomics. The most pronounced plasma proteome shift was evident in response to stage 1 surgery in ACI nonresponders, with 48 proteins being differentially abundant between the procedures. Label-free quantitation liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry analysis of these same plasma samples (nonpooled) resulted in very few proteins being identified that were significantly differentially abundant. However, this work highlighted cartilage acidic protein 1 as being increased preoperatively in nonresponders as compared with responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use proteomic techniques to profile the plasma of individuals treated with ACI. Despite iTRAQ analysis of pooled plasmas indicating that there are differences in the plasma proteome between responders and nonresponders to ACI, these findings were not replicated when assessed using an alternative nonpooled technique. This study highlights some of the difficulties in profiling the plasma proteome in an attempt to identify novel biomarkers. Regardless, cartilage acidic protein 1 has been identified as a protein candidate, which is detectable in plasma and can predict outcome to ACI before treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Candidate plasma protein biomarkers identified in this study have the potential to help determine which patients will be best suited to treatment with ACI.