Cited by 184Advanced Biosensing Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research

Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies

Open access
Raffield, Laura M., Dang, Hong, Pratte, Katherine A., Jacobson, Sean, Gillenwater, Lucas A., Ampleford, Elizabeth, Barjaktarevic, Igor, Basta, Patricia +31 more·2020·PROTEOMICS

Abstract

Novel proteomics platforms, such as the aptamer‐based SOMAscan platform, can quantify large numbers of proteins efficiently and cost‐effectively and are rapidly growing in popularity. However, comparisons to conventional immunoassays remain underexplored, leaving investigators unsure when cross‐assay comparisons are appropriate. The correlation of results from immunoassays with relative protein quantification is explored by SOMAscan. For 63 proteins assessed in two chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cohorts, subpopulations and intermediate outcome measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS), and COPDGene, using myriad rules based medicine multiplex immunoassays and SOMAscan, Spearman correlation coefficients range from −0.13 to 0.97, with a median correlation coefficient of ≈0.5 and consistent results across cohorts. A similar range is observed for immunoassays in the population‐based Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and for other assays in COPDGene and SPIROMICS. Comparisons of relative quantification from the antibody‐based Olink platform and SOMAscan in a small cohort of myocardial infarction patients also show a wide correlation range. Finally, cis pQTL data, mass spectrometry aptamer confirmation, and other publicly available data are integrated to assess relationships with observed correlations. Correlation between proteomics assays shows a wide range and should be carefully considered when comparing and meta‐analyzing proteomics data across assays and studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pmic.201900278

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The detection of a cis-pQTL for a given protein measure is often used as a metric to confirm on-target affinity-probe binding.

    “The detection of a cis-pQTL for a given protein measure is often used as a metric to confirm on-target affinity-probe binding12,15,16; existing studies comparing SomaScan and Olink measures have established that the detection of a cis-pQTL is a strong predictor of inter-platform correlation coefficients for a given protein12,15,16.”

    From Cross-ancestry comparison of aptamer and antibody protein measures (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Discussion says cis-pQTL presence can provide clues to assay specificity and suggests that a probe has at least some binding to its target protein. It does not treat a cis-pQTL as confirmation of on-target binding: it cautions that binding differences can produce spurious pQTLs and that a cis-pQTL does not exclude off-target binding. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing comparisons of SomaScan and Olink platforms have shown that some protein measures are not concordant, with median inter-platform correlation = 0.38-0.50, which challenges the accuracy of protein associations observed.

    “However, existing comparisons of SomaScan and Olink platforms have shown that some protein measures are not concordant (median inter-platform correlation = 0.38–0.50)11–16, which challenges the accuracy of protein associations observed, especially as there is no “gold-standard” reference measure for most proteins.”

    From Cross-ancestry comparison of aptamer and antibody protein measures (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results (Summary; page unavailable) report poor concordance for some SomaScan–Olink protein measures, and the Discussion recommends validating key findings with other methods. However, the Results give a median SomaScan–Olink correlation of 0.36, not 0.38–0.50; the reported 0.38 median is for SomaScan versus MSD. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing studies comparing SomaScan and Olink measures have established that the detection of a cis-pQTL is a strong predictor of inter-platform correlation coefficients for a given protein.

    “The detection of a cis-pQTL for a given protein measure is often used as a metric to confirm on-target affinity-probe binding12,15,16; existing studies comparing SomaScan and Olink measures have established that the detection of a cis-pQTL is a strong predictor of inter-platform correlation coefficients for a given protein12,15,16.”

    From Cross-ancestry comparison of aptamer and antibody protein measures (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results section reports that proteins with a SOMAscan cis-pQTL were enriched among the more highly correlated SOMAscan–Olink measures. But the Discussion says the Olink–SOMAscan dataset was too small for cis-pQTL analysis, and cautions that a cis-pQTL does not guarantee high inter-assay correlation. The paper therefore supports an association, not the claim that cis-pQTL detection was established as a strong predictor of correlation coefficients. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • cis-pQTL presence/absence is thought to provide one predictor of on-target protein measures.

    “Here, and across prior studies, cis-pQTL presence/absence is thought to provide one predictor of on-target protein measures12,15,16.”
  • The modest overlap between our findings and aptamer-based studies is unsurprising because correlations between proteins measured by both platforms are highly variable and shared genetic signals can be masked by extreme, assay-specific binding affinities.

    “This modest overlap is unsurprising, given that correlations between proteins measured by both platforms are highly variable 52,53 , and shared genetic signals can be masked by extreme, assay-specific binding affinities 51 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1]Ellington AA,, Clin Chem 2010, 56, 186. 19959625 PMC2901849
  2. [2]Smith JG, Gerszten RE, Circulation 2017, 135, 1651. 28438806 PMC5555416
  3. [3]Ngo D,, Circulation 2016, 134, 270. 27444932 PMC4963294
  4. [4]Gold L,, PloS one 2010, 5, e15004. 21165148 PMC3000457
  5. [5]Tin A,, The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine 2019, http://jalm.aaccjnls.org/content/jalm/early/2019/01/11/jalm.2018.027086.full.pdf, jalm.2018.027086.
  6. [6]Kim CH,, Scientific reports 2018, 8, 8382. 29849057 PMC5976624
  7. [7]Emilsson V,, Science (New York, N.Y.) 2018, 361, 769. PMC6190714 30072576
  8. [8]Walker RG,, Circ Res 2016, 118, 1125. 27034275 PMC4818972
  9. [9]Christiansson L,, EuPA Open Proteomics 2014, 3, 37.
  10. [11]Chaturvedi AK,, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 2011, 20, 1902. 21908726
  11. [12]Assarsson E,, PloS one 2014, 9, e95192. 24755770 PMC3995906
  12. [13]Couper D,, Thorax 2014, 69, 491. PMC3954445 24029743
  13. [14]Regan EA,, Copd 2010, 7, 32. 20214461 PMC2924193
  14. [15]Bild DE,, Circulation 2005, 111, 1313. 15769774
  15. [16]Sun W,, PLoS genetics 2016, 12, e1006011. 27532455 PMC4988780
  16. [17]Keene JD,, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 2017, 195, 473. 27579823 PMC5378424
  17. [18]O’Neal WK,, J Transl Med 2014, 12, 9.24397870
  18. [19]Bradford E,, Respiratory research 2017, 18, 180. 29065892 PMC5655820
  19. [21]Celli BR,, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 2012, 185, 1065. 22427534
  20. [22]Bradford E,, Respiratory research 2017, 18, 180. 29065892 PMC5655820
  21. [23]Bild DE,, American journal of epidemiology 2002, 156, 871. 12397006
  22. [24]Jenny NS,, Glob Heart 2016, 11, 327. 27741979 PMC5108521
  23. [25]Sun BB,, Nature 2018, 558, 73.29875488
  24. [26]Fu Q,, Clin Chem 2010, 56, 314. 20022982 PMC2905867
  25. [28]Penn-Nicholson A,, PLOS Medicine 2019, 16, e1002781. 30990820 PMC6467365
  26. [30]Christensson A,, Proteomics. Clinical applications 2018, 12, e1700067; 29281176 Chua W,, Eur Heart J 2019, 40, 1268; 30615112 PMC6475521 Feldreich T,, Journal of nephrology 2019, 32, 111. 30499038 PMC6373380
  27. [31]Suhre K,, Nature communications 2017, 8, 14357. PMC5333359 28240269
  28. [33]Croteau-Chonka DC,, Hum Mol Genet 2012, 21, 463; 22010046 PMC3276282 Polfus LM,, Hum Mol Genet 2018.
  29. [34]Jacob J,, Circulation 2018, 137, 1270. 29222138 PMC5860961
  30. [35]Candia J,, Scientific reports 2017, 7, 14248. 29079756 PMC5660188

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raffield, L. M., Dang, H., Pratte, K. A., Jacobson, S., Gillenwater, L. A., Ampleford, E., Barjaktarevic, I., Basta, P., Clish, C. B., Comellas, A. P., Cornell, E., Curtis, J. L., Doerschuk, C., Durda, P., Emson, C., Freeman, C. M., Guo, X., Hastie, A. T., Hawkins, G. A., Herrera, J., Johnson, W. C., Labaki, W. W., Liu, Y., Masters, B., Miller, M., Ortega, V. E., Papanicolaou, G., Peters, S., Taylor, K. D., Rich, S. S., Rotter, J. I., Auer, P., Reiner, A. P., Tracy, R. P., Ngo, D., Gerszten, R. E., O'Neal, W. K., Bowler, R. P., & NHLBI Trans‐Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) Consortium
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • National Jewish Health (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • UCLA Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care David Geffen School of Medicine University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles CA 90095
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • AstraZeneca (United States) (US)
  • The Lundquist Institute (US)
  • ProterixBio (United States) (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Marsico Lung Institute University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC 27599
Corresponding author
Raffield, Laura M.
Venue
PROTEOMICS
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
e1900278-e1900278
ISSN
  • 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1615-9861
OpenAlex
W3022509738
Cited by
184
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PROTEOMICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Merit Review I01 CX000911)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01 HL132947, T32 HL007749, T32 HL129982)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Advanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Keywords
SomaScan, aptamer-based proteomics, relative protein quantification, proteomics data integration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, cis-pQTL
MeSH terms
Smokers, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Immunoassay, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Cohort Studies, Proteome, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Proteomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review