Systematic benchmarking of mass spectrometry-based antibody sequencing reveals methodological biases

Maria Chernigovskaya, Khang Lê Quý, Maria Stensland, Sachin Singh, Rowan Nelson, Melih Yilmaz, Konstantinos Kalogeropoulos, Pavel Sinitcyn, Anand Patel, Natalie Castellana, Stefano Bonissone, Stian Foss, Jan Terje Andersen, Geir Kjetil Sandve, Timothy Patrick Jenkins, William S. Noble, Tuula A. Nyman, Igor Snapkow, Victor Greiff*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Working paperPreprintAcademic

Abstract

The circulating antibody repertoire is crucial for immune protection, holding significant immunological and biotechnological value. While bottom-up mass spectrometry (MS) is the most widely used proteomics technique for profiling the sequence diversity of circulating antibodies (Ab-seq), it has not been thoroughly benchmarked. We quantified the replicability and robustness of Ab-seq using six monoclonal antibodies with known protein sequences in 70 different combinations of concentration and oligoclonality, both with and without polyclonal serum IgG background. Each combination underwent four protease treatments and was analyzed across four experimental and three technical replicates, totaling 3,360 LC-MS/MS runs. We quantified the dependence of MS-based Ab-seq identification on antibody sequence, concentration, protease, background signal diversity, and bioinformatics setups. Integrating the data from experimental replicates, proteases, and bioinformatics tools enhanced antibody identification. De novo peptide sequencing showed similar performance to database-dependent methods for higher antibody concentrations, but de novo antibody reconstruction remains challenging. Our work provides a foundational resource for the field of MS-based antibody profiling.
Original languageEnglish
PublisherbioRxiv
Number of pages94
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Nov 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic benchmarking of mass spectrometry-based antibody sequencing reveals methodological biases'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this