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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies

Open access

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 184

Metadata

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
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