Standardized Workflow for Precise Mid- and High-Throughput Proteomics of Blood Biofluids.

BACKGROUND: Accurate discovery assay workflows are critical for identifying authentic circulating protein biomarkers in diverse blood matrices. Maximizing the commonalities in the proteomic workflows between different biofluids simplifies the approach and increases the likelihood for reproducibility. We developed a workflow that can accommodate 3 blood-based proteomes: naive plasma, depleted plasma and dried blood. METHODS: Optimal conditions for sample preparation and data independent acquisition-mass spectrometry analysis were established in plasma then automated for depleted plasma and dried blood. The mass spectrometry workflow was modified to facilitate sensitive high-throughput analysis or deeper profiling with mid-throughput analysis. Analytical performance was evaluated by the linear response of peptides and proteins to a 6- or 7-point dilution curve and the reproducibility of the relative peptide and protein intensity for 5 digestion replicates per day on 3 different days for each biofluid. RESULTS: Using the high-throughput workflow, 74% (plasma), 93% (depleted), and 87% (dried blood) displayed an inter-day CV <30%. The mid-throughput workflow had 67% (plasma), 90% (depleted), and 78% (dried blood) of peptides display an inter-day CV <30%. Lower limits of detection and quantification were determined for peptides and proteins observed in each biofluid and workflow. Based on each protein and peptide's analytical performance, we could describe the observable, reliable, reproducible, and quantifiable proteomes for each biofluid and workflow. CONCLUSION: The standardized workflows established here allows for reproducible and quantifiable detection of proteins covering a broad dynamic range. We envisage that implementation of this standard workflow should simplify discovery approaches and facilitate the translation of candidate markers into clinical use.

Identification and Evaluation of Serum Protein Biomarkers That Differentiate Psoriatic Arthritis From Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify serum protein biomarkers that might distinguish patients with early inflammatory arthritis (IA) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and may be used to support appropriate early intervention. METHODS: The serum proteome of patients with PsA and patients with RA was interrogated using nano-liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (nano-LC-MS/MS) (n = 64 patients), an aptamer-based assay (SomaScan) targeting 1,129 proteins (n = 36 patients), and a multiplexed antibody assay (Luminex) for 48 proteins (n = 64 patients). Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) assays were developed to evaluate the performance of putative markers using the discovery cohort (n = 60 patients) and subsequently an independent cohort of PsA and RA patients (n = 167). RESULTS: Multivariate machine learning analysis of the protein discovery data from the 3 platforms revealed that it was possible to differentiate PsA patients from RA patients with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 for nano-LC-MS/MS, 0.69 for bead-based immunoassay measurements, and 0.73 for aptamer-based analysis. Subsequently, in the separate verification and evaluation studies, random forest models revealed that a subset of proteins measured by MRM could differentiate PsA and RA patients with AUCs of 0.79 and 0.85, respectively. CONCLUSION: We present a serum protein biomarker panel that can separate patients with early-onset IA with PsA from those with RA. With continued evaluation and refinement using additional and larger patient cohorts, including those with other arthropathies, we suggest that the panel identified here could contribute to improved clinical decision making.

Early biomarkers of joint damage in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis.

Joint destruction, as evidenced by radiographic findings, is a significant problem for patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Inherently irreversible and frequently progressive, the process of joint damage begins at and even before the clinical onset of disease. However, rheumatoid and psoriatic arthropathies are heterogeneous in nature and not all patients progress to joint damage. It is therefore important to identify patients susceptible to joint destruction in order to initiate more aggressive treatment as soon as possible and thereby potentially prevent irreversible joint damage. At the same time, the high cost and potential side effects associated with aggressive treatment mean it is also important not to over treat patients and especially those who, even if left untreated, would not progress to joint destruction. It is therefore clear that a protein biomarker signature that could predict joint damage at an early stage would support more informed clinical decisions on the most appropriate treatment regimens for individual patients. Although many candidate biomarkers for rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis have been reported in the literature, relatively few have reached clinical use and as a consequence the number of prognostic biomarkers used in rheumatology has remained relatively static for several years. It has become evident that a significant challenge in the transition of biomarker candidates to clinical diagnostic assays lies in the development of suitably robust biomarker assays, especially multiplexed assays, and their clinical validation in appropriate patient sample cohorts. Recent developments in mass spectrometry-based targeted quantitative protein measurements have transformed our ability to rapidly develop multiplexed protein biomarker assays. These advances are likely to have a significant impact on the validation of biomarkers in the future. In this review, we have comprehensively compiled a list of candidate biomarkers in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis, evaluated the evidence for their potential as biomarkers of bone (joint) damage, and outlined how mass spectrometry-based targeted and multiplexed measurement of candidate biomarker proteins is likely to accelerate their clinical validation and the development of clinical diagnostic tests.