Abstract
Plasma proteomics technologies are rapidly evolving and of critical importance to the field of biomedical research. Here, we report a technical evaluation of six notable plasma proteomics technologies─unenriched (Neat), acid depletion, PreOmics ENRICHplus, Mag-Net, Seer Proteograph XT, and Olink Explore HT. The methods were compared on proteomic depth, reproducibility, linearity, tolerance to lipid interference, and limit of detection/quantification. In total, we performed 618 LC-MS/MS experiments and 93 Olink Explore HT assays. The Seer method achieved the greatest proteomic depth (∼4500 proteins detected), while Olink detected ∼2600 proteins. Other MS-based methods ranged from ∼500-2200 proteins detected. In our analysis, Neat, Mag-Net, Seer, and Olink had good reproducibility, while PreOmics and Acid had higher variability (>20% median coefficient of variation). All MS methods showed good linearity with spiked-in C-reactive protein (CRP); CRP was surprisingly not in the Olink assay. None of the methods were affected by lipid interference. Seer produced the highest number of quantifiable proteins with a measurable LOD (4407) and LOQ (2696). Olink had the next highest number of quantifiable proteins, with 2002 having an LOD and 1883 having an LOQ. Finally, we tested the applicability of these methods for detecting differences between healthy and cancer groups in a nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort. All six methods detected differentially abundant proteins between the cancer and healthy samples but disagreed on which proteins were significant, highlighting the contrast between each method.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3074-3087 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Journal of Proteome Research |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 6 Jun 2025 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society.
Funding
The authors thank the NIH grant P41 GM108538 and R35 GM118110 for financial support of this work. The authors also thank Seer, PreOmics, Olink, and the Steen Laboratory. Specifically, Seer provided materials (Xiaoyan Zhao: kits, reagents, and purchased plasma), technical advice (Asim Siddiqui), and analysis support (Lee Cantrell, Ting Huang, Jian Wang: matrix-matched calibration curve and differential expression analysis) and sponsored the Olink data collection. PreOmics provided access to the prerelease EnrichPLUS plasma kit and on-site technical support (Measho Abreha). The authors are also grateful for technical support from Olink and helpful discussions with Dylan Tabang of the Hanno Steen Laboratory (Acid).
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Steen Laboratory | |
| National Institutes of Health | P41 GM108538, R35 GM118110 |
Keywords
- LC-MS
- Mag-Net
- mass spectrometry
- method comparison
- Olink
- plasma
- PreOmics
- proteomics
- Seer