Cargando…

Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma

[Image: see text] Quantitative analysis of protein biomarkers in plasma is typically done by ELISA, but this method is limited by the availability of high-quality antibodies. An alternative approach is protein immunoprecipitation combined with multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (IP-MRM)....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, De, Alborn, William E., Slebos, Robbert J. C., Liebler, Daniel C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2013
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24224610
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/pr400877e
_version_ 1782295920151363584
author Lin, De
Alborn, William E.
Slebos, Robbert J. C.
Liebler, Daniel C.
author_facet Lin, De
Alborn, William E.
Slebos, Robbert J. C.
Liebler, Daniel C.
author_sort Lin, De
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Quantitative analysis of protein biomarkers in plasma is typically done by ELISA, but this method is limited by the availability of high-quality antibodies. An alternative approach is protein immunoprecipitation combined with multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (IP-MRM). We compared IP-MRM to ELISA for the analysis of six colon cancer biomarker candidates (metalloproteinase inhibitor 1 (TIMP1), cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP), thrombospondin-2 (THBS2), endoglin (ENG), mesothelin (MSLN) and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9)) in plasma from colon cancer patients and noncancer controls. Proteins were analyzed by multiplex immunoprecipitation from plasma with the ELISA capture antibodies, further purified by SDS-PAGE, digested and analyzed by stable isotope dilution MRM. IP-MRM provided linear responses (r = 0.978–0.995) between 10 and 640 ng/mL for the target proteins spiked into a “mock plasma” matrix consisting of 60 mg/mL bovine serum albumin. Measurement variation (coefficient of variation at the limit of detection) for IP-MRM assays ranged from 2.3 to 19%, which was similar to variation for ELISAs of the same samples. IP-MRM and ELISA measurements for all target proteins except ENG were highly correlated (r = 0.67–0.97). IP-MRM with high-quality capture antibodies thus provides an effective alternative method to ELISA for protein quantitation in biological fluids.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3864264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38642642013-12-16 Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma Lin, De Alborn, William E. Slebos, Robbert J. C. Liebler, Daniel C. J Proteome Res [Image: see text] Quantitative analysis of protein biomarkers in plasma is typically done by ELISA, but this method is limited by the availability of high-quality antibodies. An alternative approach is protein immunoprecipitation combined with multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (IP-MRM). We compared IP-MRM to ELISA for the analysis of six colon cancer biomarker candidates (metalloproteinase inhibitor 1 (TIMP1), cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP), thrombospondin-2 (THBS2), endoglin (ENG), mesothelin (MSLN) and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9)) in plasma from colon cancer patients and noncancer controls. Proteins were analyzed by multiplex immunoprecipitation from plasma with the ELISA capture antibodies, further purified by SDS-PAGE, digested and analyzed by stable isotope dilution MRM. IP-MRM provided linear responses (r = 0.978–0.995) between 10 and 640 ng/mL for the target proteins spiked into a “mock plasma” matrix consisting of 60 mg/mL bovine serum albumin. Measurement variation (coefficient of variation at the limit of detection) for IP-MRM assays ranged from 2.3 to 19%, which was similar to variation for ELISAs of the same samples. IP-MRM and ELISA measurements for all target proteins except ENG were highly correlated (r = 0.67–0.97). IP-MRM with high-quality capture antibodies thus provides an effective alternative method to ELISA for protein quantitation in biological fluids. American Chemical Society 2013-11-13 2013-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3864264/ /pubmed/24224610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/pr400877e Text en Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society Terms of Use (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_termsofuse.html)
spellingShingle Lin, De
Alborn, William E.
Slebos, Robbert J. C.
Liebler, Daniel C.
Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma
title Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma
title_full Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma
title_fullStr Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma
title_short Comparison of Protein Immunoprecipitation-Multiple Reaction Monitoring with ELISA for Assay of Biomarker Candidates in Plasma
title_sort comparison of protein immunoprecipitation-multiple reaction monitoring with elisa for assay of biomarker candidates in plasma
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24224610
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/pr400877e
work_keys_str_mv AT linde comparisonofproteinimmunoprecipitationmultiplereactionmonitoringwithelisaforassayofbiomarkercandidatesinplasma
AT albornwilliame comparisonofproteinimmunoprecipitationmultiplereactionmonitoringwithelisaforassayofbiomarkercandidatesinplasma
AT slebosrobbertjc comparisonofproteinimmunoprecipitationmultiplereactionmonitoringwithelisaforassayofbiomarkercandidatesinplasma
AT lieblerdanielc comparisonofproteinimmunoprecipitationmultiplereactionmonitoringwithelisaforassayofbiomarkercandidatesinplasma