Comparison of multiplexed protein analysis platforms for the detection of biomarkers in the nasal epithelial lining fluid of healthy subjects

Multiplexed protein analysis platforms are a novel and efficient way to characterize biomarkers in a variety of biological samples. Few studies have compared protein quantitation and reproducibility of results across platforms. We utilize a novel nasosorption technique to collect nasal epithelial li...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of immunological methods 2023-06, Vol.517, p.113473, Article 113473
Hauptverfasser: Zetlen, Hilary L., Cao, Kevin T., Schichlein, Kevin D., Knight, Noelle, Maecker, Holden T., Nadeau, Kari C., Rebuli, Meghan E., Rice, Mary B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Multiplexed protein analysis platforms are a novel and efficient way to characterize biomarkers in a variety of biological samples. Few studies have compared protein quantitation and reproducibility of results across platforms. We utilize a novel nasosorption technique to collect nasal epithelial lining fluid (NELF) from healthy subjects, and compare the detection of proteins in NELF across three commonly used platforms. NELF was collected from both nares of twenty healthy subjects using an absorbent fibrous matrix and analyzed using three different protein analysis platforms: Luminex, Meso Scale Discovery (MSD), and Olink. Twenty-three protein analytes were shared across two or more platforms, and correlations across platforms were assessed using Spearman correlations. Among the twelve proteins represented on all three platforms, IL1⍺ and IL6 were very highly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient [r] ≥ 0.9); CCL3, CCL4, and MCP1 were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.7); and IFNɣ, IL8, and TNF⍺ were moderately correlated (r ≥ 0.5). Four proteins (IL2, IL4, IL10, IL13) were poorly correlated across at least two platform comparisons (r 
ISSN:0022-1759
1872-7905
1872-7905
DOI:10.1016/j.jim.2023.113473