The use of multiplex platforms for absolute and relative protein quantification of clinical material
Open accessAbstract
When introducing multiplex platforms to measure protein content in precious clinical material there is an increased risk of cross reactivity, loss of sensitivity as well as accuracy. In this paper, four multiplex platforms and one singleplex platform were compared by running pre- and post-treatment plasma samples from CML patients. We found a variation of absolute protein concentrations between platforms. For some of the analytes and platforms, relative differences between pre- and post-treatment samples correlated. We conclude that absolute concentrations measured by different platforms should be compared with caution and comparing relative differences could be more accurate.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 specificity of aptamer-based multiplex methods has been discussed before.
“The specificity of aptamer‐based multiplex methods has also been discussed before (Christiansson et al, 2014; Joshi & Mayr, 2018).”
From The genetic regulation of protein expression in cerebrospinal fluid (2023) · cites this paper as Christiansson et al, 2014
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
Aptamer-Based Multiplexed Proteomic Technology for Biomarker Discovery
Gold, L., Ayers, D., Bertino, J., Bock, C., Bock, A., Brody, E. N., Carter, J., Dalby, A. B., Eaton, B. E., Fitzwater, T., et al. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015004 · Cited by 1,754 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Kingsmore SF. Multiplexed protein measurement: technologies and applications of protein and antibody arrays. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;5:310-20.
- Ellington AA, Kullo IJ, Bailey KR, Klee GG. Antibody-based protein multiplex platforms: technical and operational challenges. Clin Chem 2010;56:186-93.
- Vignali DA. Multiplexed particle-based flow cytometric assays. J Immunol Methods 2000;243:243-55.
- Lai Y, Feldman KL, Clark RS. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Crit Care Med 2005;33:S433-4.
- Miao W. Electrogenerated chemiluminescence and its biorelated applications. Chem Rev 2008;108: 2506-53.
- Fulton RJ, McDade RL, Smith PL, Kienker LJ, Kettman Jr JR. Advanced multiplexed analysis with the FlowMetrix system. Clin Chem 1997;43:1749-56.
- Raz SR, Haasnoot W. Multiplex bioanalytical methods for food and environmental monitoring. Trac-Trend Anal Chem 2011;30:1526-37.
- Chowdhury F, Williams A, Johnson P. Validation and comparison of two multiplex technologies, Luminex and Mesoscale Discovery, for human cytokine profiling. J Immunol Methods 2009;340:55-64.
- Richens JL, Urbanowicz RA, Metcalf R, Corne J, O'Shea P, Fairclough L. Quantitative validation and comparison of multiplex cytokine kits. J Biomol Screen 2010;15:562-8.
- Breen EC, Reynolds SM, Cox C, Jacobson LP, Magpantay L, Mulder CB, et al. Multisite comparison of high-sensitivity multiplex cytokine assays. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2011;18:1229-42.
- Mukherjee S, Katki K, Arisi GM, Foresti ML, Shapiro LA. Early TBI-induced cytokine alterations are similarly detected by two distinct methods of multiplex assay. Front Mol Neurosci 2011;4:21.
- Fu Q, Zhu J, Van Eyk JE. Comparison of multiplex immunoassay platforms. Clin Chem 2010;56:314-8.
- Nechansky A, Grunt S, Roitt IM, Kircheis R. Comparison of the calibration standards of three commercially available multiplex kits for human cytokine measurement to WHO standards reveals striking differences. Biomark Insights 2008;3:227-35.
- Han K, Liang Z, Zhou N. Design strategies for aptamer-based biosensors. Sensors (Basel) 2010;10:4541-57.
- Kelley M, DeSilva B. Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for macromolecules. Aaps J 2007;9:E156-63.
- Schipke CG, Prokop S, Heppner FL, Heuser I, Peters O. Comparison of immunosorbent assays for the quantification of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease in human cerebrospinal fluid. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2011;31:139-45.
- Valentin MA, Ma S, Zhao A, Legay F, Avrameas A. Validation of immunoassay for protein biomarkers: bioanalytical study plan implementation to support pre-clinical and clinical studies. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2011;55:869-77.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brodin, P., & Davis, M. M. (2017) · Nature reviews. Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri.2016.125 · Cited by 730 · see citing works
Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies
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., et al. (2020) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201900278 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Facile Impedimetric Analysis of Neuronal Exosome Markers in Parkinson’s Disease Diagnostics
Fu, Y., Jiang, C., Tofaris, G. K., & Davis, J. J. (2020) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c03092 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
The genetic regulation of protein expression in cerebrospinal fluid
Hansson, O., Kumar, A., Janelidze, S., Stomrud, E., Insel, P. S., Blennow, K., Zetterberg, H., Fauman, E., Hedman, Å. K., Nagle, M. W., et al. (2023) · EMBO Molecular Medicine · doi:10.15252/emmm.202216359 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Novel <scp>CSF</scp> biomarkers to discriminate <scp>FTLD</scp> and its pathological subtypes
del Campo, M., Galimberti, D., Elias, N., Boonkamp, L., Pijnenburg, Y. A., van Swieten, J. C., Watts, K., Paciotti, S., Beccari, T., Hu, W., et al. (2018) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.629 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Christiansson, L., Mustjoki, S., Simonsson, B., Olsson-Strömberg, U., Loskog, A. S. I., & Mangsbo, S. M.
- Affiliations
- Uppsala University (SE)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Mangsbo, Sara M.
- Venue
- EuPA Open Proteomics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- 37-47
- ISSN
- 2212-9685 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059753636
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- EuPA Open Proteomics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- absolute protein quantification, relative protein quantification, cross-reactivity, chronic myeloid leukemia, pre- and post-treatment comparison, platform comparison, 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
