Technical Evaluation of Plasma Proteomics Technologies

William F. Beimers, Katherine A. Overmyer, Pavel Sinitcyn, Noah M. Lancaster, Scott T. Quarmby, Joshua J. Coon*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3074-3087
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Proteome Research
Volume24
Issue number6
Early online date2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 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).

FundersFunder number
Steen Laboratory
National Institutes of HealthP41 GM108538, R35 GM118110

    Keywords

    • LC-MS
    • Mag-Net
    • mass spectrometry
    • method comparison
    • Olink
    • plasma
    • PreOmics
    • proteomics
    • Seer

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Technical Evaluation of Plasma Proteomics Technologies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this