Multiplex Immuno-MALDI-TOF MS for Targeted ... - ACS Publications

Subscriber access provided by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES

Article

Multiplex Immuno-MALDI-TOF MS for Targeted Quantification of Protein Biomarkers and Their Proteoforms Related to Inflammation and Renal Dysfunction Jie Gao, Klaus Meyer, Katrin Borucki, and Per Magne Ueland Anal. Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b04975 • Publication Date (Web): 08 Feb 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 10, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Analytical Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Analytical Chemistry

1

Multiplex Immuno-MALDI-TOF MS for Targeted

2

Quantification of Protein Biomarkers and Their

3

Proteoforms Related to Inflammation and Renal

4

Dysfunction

5 6

Jie Gao,† Klaus Meyer,‡ Katrin Borucki,§, and Per Magne Ueland†,∏

7

8

†

Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, and ∏Laboratory of Clinical

9

Biochemistry, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, Norway

10

‡

Bevital AS, Jonas Lies veg 87, Laboratory building, 9th floor, 5021 Bergen, Norway

11

§

Institute for Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, Leipziger Strasse 44

12

Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany

13

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Analytical Chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

14

ABSTRACT

15

Circulating proteins are widely used as biomarkers in clinical applications for the diagnosis,

16

prediction and treatment of numerous diseases. Immunoassays are the most common

17

technologies for quantification of protein biomarkers and exist in various formats. Traditional

18

immunoassays offer sensitive and fast analyses, but cannot differentiate between proteoforms.

19

Protein micro-heterogeneity, mainly due to post-translational modification, has been recognized

20

as fingerprint for different pathologies, and knowledge about proteoforms is an important step

21

towards personalized medicine. Mass spectrometry (MS) has emerged to be a powerful technique

22

for the characterization and quantification of proteoforms. We have established a novel four-plex

23

immunoassay based on Matrix-assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-Of-Flight (MALDI-

24

TOF) MS for the targeted quantification of the inflammatory markers C-reactive protein (CRP),

25

serum amyloid A (SAA) and calprotectin (S100A8/9), and the kidney function marker cystatin C

26

(CysC). Antibodies were covalently bound to super-paramagnetic beads, which delivered robust

27

and fast sample processing. Polyhistidine-tagged recombinant target proteins were used as

28

internal standards for quantification. Our method identified a number of proteoforms for SAA

29

(n=11), S100A8/9 (n=4) and CysC (n=4). The assay was characterized by low limits of detection

30

(0.007 - 0.172 µg/mL) and low coefficients of variation (3.8 - 9.4%). Method validation

31

demonstrated good between-assay agreement with immuno-turbidimetry (R2 = 0.963 for CRP),

32

ELISA (R2 = 0.958 for SAA; R2 = 0.913 for S100A8/9), and nephelometry (R2 = 0.963 for CysC).

33

The low sample consumption of 20 µl and the high sample throughput of 384 samples per day

34

make this targeted immuno-MALDI approach suited for assessment of inflammatory and renal

35

status in large cohort studies based on precious biobanks samples.


Page 2 of 32

Page 3 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

36


INTRODUCTION

37

Protein biomarkers have attracted increasing attention during the last years for the diagnosis,

38

risk assessment, and therapy of diseases.1, 2 Micro-heterogeneity increases the diversity of protein

39

biomarkers, as mutations, alternative splicing or post-translational modifications (PTMs) result in

40

proteoforms, which can play different roles in biological processes and may vary between

41

pathologies and individuals.3, 4 Knowledge about protein heterogeneity is a key to personalized

42

diagnostics and treatment of disease. Thus, there is increasing demand for quantitative techniques

43

for investigation of biomarker diversity. Discrimination of proteoforms by traditional

44

immunological techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or

45

radioimmunoassay (RIA) is difficult or impossible.5, 6 They either capture the wild type form

46

only or the antibody cannot discriminate between the proteoforms.

47

Mass spectrometry (MS) allows determination of the molecular mass, differentiation between

48

proteoforms, and multiplexing of biomarkers, which are advantages when compared to traditional

49

immunoassay. Quantification of peptides and proteins by MS is carried out as bottom-up or top-

50

down approaches.7, 8 Bottom-up methods identify the proteins indirectly using their constituent

51

peptide fragments, whereas top-down assays detect the intact protein and are superior methods

52

for discrimination of structurally related proteoforms. Matrix-assisted Desorption/Ionization

53

Time-of-Flight (MALDI-TOF) MS is known to be a sensitive and rapid method for the detection

54

of large biomolecules.9, 10 When combined with immuno-affinity capture, MALDI-TOF MS has

55

been proven as a powerful tool for the targeted quantification of intact proteins.6,

56

Combination of immuno-affinity with MALDI MS has to overcome two challenges, i.e. design of

57

a robust and compatible assay format for protein capture, and application of intact proteins as

58

internal standards (ISs). During the last decade different formats have been evaluated, which are

59

based on chips13, 14, pipetting tips12, 15 and magnetic beads (MBs)16-18. Especially, the so-called 3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

11, 12


60

mass spectrometric immunoassay (MSIA) has been applied to various protein biomarkers and has

61

recently become commercially available.19 Uniformly-isotope-labelled proteins, modified

62

recombinant and endogenous proteins have been successfully used as ISs in quantitative

63

analyses.11, 12, 20, 21

64

Chronic low-grade inflammatory processes have been related to many common diseases

65

including arthrosclerosis, diabetes, obesity, rheumatic disorders and cancer.22-26 Many biomarkers

66

of inflammation have been identified. Due to the complexity of inflammatory and immune

67

responses, a combination of multiple markers may perform better in terms of disease prediction,

68

diagnosis or prognosis than a single marker.

69

C-reactive protein (CRP) belongs to the pentraxin family of proteins, which is characterized by

70

calcium-dependent assembly of five monomers forming a radial symmetric ring.27 While the

71

pentameric ring represents the native form in serum and plasma, dissociation results in

72

monomeric CRP (mCRP), which is mostly found in tissues28. CRP is produced in hepatocytes,

73

mainly under the transcriptional control of cytokines, IL-6 and IL-1. CRP is a major acute-phase

74

reactant and the most important marker for the diagnosis of systemic inflammation in clinical

75

practice. During an acute immune response levels can increase more than 1000-fold and peak

76

after about 48 hours. Low levels of the so-called high-sensitivity (hs-) CRP below 10 µg/mL are

77

typically found in the general population. Chronically elevated levels within this range have been

78

associated with higher risks of different pathologies, including cardiovascular diseases (CVD),

79

stroke, metabolic syndrome, and cancer.29-31

80

Serum amyloid A (SAA) is another key acute-phase protein and is coded by four different

81

genes. SAA1 and SAA2 encode for the acute-phase proteins, while SAA3 is an apparent

82

pseudogene, and SAA4 is constitutively expressed32, 33. Various single nucleotide polymorphisms

83

have been described for SAA1 and SAA2, and their protein products undergo posttranslational 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 32

Page 5 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


84

truncation, which generate a large number of proteoforms34. SAA production occurs in the liver,

85

and is driven by IL-6, IL-1 and TNF-α. During acute inflammation SAA is secreted into the

86

circulation where concentrations could increase more than 1000-fold compared to normal values

87

of 0.997. Non-linear standard curves have been described earlier for a similar MALDI

277

assay12 and may be related to differences in immuno-affinity enrichment or MALDI MS

278

detection between the target protein and the IS. 13 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 14 of 32

279

Assay Performance. Assay precisions for the markers were evaluated in terms of within- and

280

between-day coefficients of variations (CVs, Table 1). Within-day precisions were high and

281

comparable for all 4 markers, CV ranging from 3.8% to 7.5%. Between-day CVs for CRP, total

282

SAA (tSAA) and total S100A8/9 (tS100A8/9) varied from 7.5% to 9.4%. Between-day CVs of

283

total CysC (tCysC) were similar to within-day CVs and ranged from 3.9% to 5.1%.

284

Measurement of the four protein biomarkers was sensitive with LODs and LOQs of 0.06

285

µg/mL and 0.17 µg/mL for CRP, 0.04 µg/mL and 0.12 µg/mL for tSAA, 0.02 µg/mL and 0.07

286

µg/mL for tS100A8/9, and 0.01 µg/mL and 0.02 µg/mL for tCysC, respectively.

287

Compared to other MSIAs established for CRP, cystatin C and SAA, the precision of the

288

present assay was similar or better. In general, assay precision of different MSIAs is not related

289

to whether recombinant target proteins or exogenous proteins were used as ISs.

290

precision compared to our assay has been reported for a method based on addition of IS to the

291

sample after enrichment

292

during sample treatment. Detection sensitivity of the method was in the low pmol range and

293

similar to most MSIAs. Only an approach for quantification of B-type natriuretic peptide

294

demonstrated lower LODs down to the fmol range.18

75

11, 12, 73, 74

Lower

, which underlines the importance of an IS to correct for variations

295

Biomarker stability. Protein degradation or denaturation during sample storage and freeze-

296

thaw cycles are crucial for immunoassays. While partial degradation may create artefacts

297

including generation of proteoforms that do not exist in vivo, denaturation can alter antigen-

298

antibody interaction by changing the three-dimensional integrity of the protein. The stabilities of

299

CRP and cystatin C during sample handling and storage have been evaluated in several studies,

300

demonstrating that both proteins in general tolerate several freeze-thaw cycles, and short and

301

long-term storage between +20°C and -80°C76-79. Long-term stability data for SAA and


Page 15 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


302

S100A8/9 do not exist. While short-term stability data for SAA are not consistent, S100A8/9 has

303

been proven to be stable at +8°C for one week and -20°C for 6 month80-83. As long as adequate

304

details on stability are not available for these two proteins, sample storage at -80°C should be

305

mandatory.

306

Method Comparison. Comparison of our immuno-MALDI MS assay with established

307

techniques showed good between-assay agreement (Figure 3). Signal saturation did not occur for

308

any of the markers within the working ranges, indicating that about 50 µg of antibody per mg of

309

beads84 provided sufficient binding capacity for this four-plex assay.

310

Good between-assay agreement (R2 = 0.963) was achieved for CRP, covering a wide

311

concentration range of from 0.1 to 100 µg/mL (Figure 3). The slope (95% CI) obtained by

312

Passing-Bablok regression was not different from 1 (0.99, 1.12), while the intercept showed a

313

small, but significant deviation (95% CI) of 0.48 µg/mL (-0.72, -0.26) from 0. Bland-Altman plot

314

confirmed the good between-method agreement by a small average deviation of 2% (Supporting

315

Information Figure S-2).

316

Validation of SAA was limited to 25 reference samples of tSAA values below 12 µg/mL,

317

because most samples exceeded the analytical range of ELISA. Passing-Bablok comparison

318

demonstrated good linearity (R2 = 0.958), but significant deviations of slope and intercept from 1

319

(95% CI: (0.75, 0.97)) and 0 (95% CI: (-1.46, -0.86)), respectively (Figure 3). The Bland-Altman

320

plot illustrated the divergence showing higher levels by ELISA than MALDI MS at low tSAA

321

concentrations (Supporting Information Figure S-2).

322

Total S100A8/9 levels of the reference plasma covered a range from 0.6 to about 13 µg/mL

323

(Figure 3). When comparing with results based on ELISA assay, we observed good between-

324

assay agreement, but it dropped from R2 = 0.941 to 0.913 after correction for interference with



325

des-S CysC-OH (data not shown). Slope of the regression line did not differ significantly from 1

326

(95% CI: (0.99, 1.16)), but intercept showed a significant bias of 2.03 µg/mL (95% CI: (1.70,

327

2.28)) from 0. Deviation between the methods decreased with increasing concentration

328

(Supporting Information Figure S-2). Divergence of S100A8/9 levels between immunological

329

assays has been reported earlier80, 85 and with increasing usage of serum/plasma calprotectin in

330

clinical studies, introduction of certified reference material is crucial for assay harmonization.

331

However, as long as there is no consensus about the exact stoichiometry of the S100A8/9 hetero-

332

complex, immunoassays may differ by capturing uneven portions of different hetero-complexes.

333

Validation of tCysC, covering plasma levels from 0.63 to 5.58 µg/mL, delivered good linearity

334

(R2 = 0.963) and agreement between immuno-MALDI MS and nephelometry (Figure 3). While

335

the slope did not differ significantly from 1 (95% CI: (0.94, 1.06)), the intercept showed a minor,

336

but significant deviation from 0 (95% CI: (0.02, 0.15)). The average deviation (about 7%) and the

337

limit of agreement (23%) between the two methods were low (Supporting Information Figure S-

338

2).

339

Quantification of Proteoforms. All proteoforms observed in this work have been described

340

earlier by different MS approaches (Supporting Information Table S-1). CRP was detected as

341

mCRP only, most probably derived from dissociation of the native pentameric form during

342

sample preparation. The pro-inflammatory mCRP has been described exclusively in tissues28, and

343

it is unlikely that mCRP generated in vivo contributed substantially to the levels measured in

344

serum/plasma. Application of a monoclonal antibody against mCRP could clarify its site of

345

origin.86

346

SAA demonstrated large micro-heterogeneity depending on the expressed genes and

347

truncations (Supporting Information Figure S-3). SAA1 and SAA2 exist as 5 and 2 allelic

348

variants, respectively, which in combination with 2 N-terminal posttranslational truncations, des16 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 16 of 32

Page 17 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


349

R and des-RS, can be expressed as 21 different proteoforms (Supporting Information Table S-1).

350

However, several of the proteoforms had very low abundances and/or overlapped in the mass

351

spectra, limiting the number of detectable proteoforms to 11. SAA1 represented the most

352

prominent proteoforms in the 80 reference samples with a relative abundance of 71% (Supporting

353

Information Figure S-4), while SAA2.1 accounted for 21 % only. SAA1.3 and 2.2 were difficult

354

to disentangle by automated peak identification in many samples. Therefore, these proteoforms

355

were analyzed together and contributed in average 8% to tSAA. Visual inspection of the mass

356

signals revealed that SAA1.3 and 2.2 contributed equally to the combined ion signal.

357

Furthermore, the des-R truncations of both isoforms overlapped with the des-RS SAA1.2. The

358

relative proportion of SAA truncations varied strongly between individuals with CVs between 27%

359

and 41% (Supporting Information Figure S-5). Shorter truncations as described by Trenchevska

360

et al 74 were not detected in our analyses.

361

The hetero-complexes of S100A8/9 were detectable by its S100A8 and S100A9 monomers

362

with relative abundance of 74% and 26%, respectively, and consisted of four different

363

proteoforms (Supporting Information Table S-1). Intact complexes of S100A8/9, as described by

364

Vogl et al,49 were not detected by our method. We assume that the majority of the monomers

365

originated from dissociated hetero-complexes, since the amount of circulating monomers has

366

been reported to be minor.87 However, the three times higher fraction of S100A8 compared to

367

S100A9 was not consistent with any described structure of S100A8/9 hetero-complexes. Between

368

individuals the proportions of the proteoforms varied with CVs from 6% (S100A8) to 48% (des-

369

M S100A9) (Supporting Information Figure S-5).

370

CysC consisted of five proteoforms (Supporting Information Table S-1) and the obtained

371

relative amounts were consistent with earlier findings12. Hydroxylated and native CysC

372

represented the most abundant proteoforms contributing to tCysC with in average 40% and 35%, 17 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


373

respectively (Supporting Information Figure S-5). Variation of the relative abundances of

374

proteoform among individuals was very low for the non-truncated forms with a CV of 5%, while

375

highest variation was observed for des-SSP CysC with a CV of 26%.

376


Page 18 of 32

Page 19 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


377

CONCLUSION

378

This study has described a four-plex immuno-MALDI approach for the targeted quantification of

379

three inflammatory markers, CRP, SAA, and S100A8/9, and the functional marker of kidney

380

function, CysC. The method allowed sensitive and precise quantification of all four markers, and

381

comparison with established immunoassays demonstrated high agreement for CRP, SAA, and

382

CysC. Lack of certified materials for S100A8/9 allowed relative comparison only, and underlined

383

the urgent demand for harmonization of calprotectin immunoassays. Our method delivered

384

detailed insights into the biomarkers diversities by identifying up to 20 proteoforms per sample,

385

and especially SAA demonstrated large heterogeneity between individuals. Various immuno-MS

386

approaches have been established for targeted protein quantification. Most of these methods are

387

bottom-up approaches and are based on the positive identification of selected peptides often by

388

Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) mass spectrometry. With the introduction of Stable

389

Isotope Standards and Capture by Anti-Peptide Antibodies (SISCAPA) and immuno-MALDI

390

(iMALDI) assays, sensitivities of bottom-up techniques improved dramatically with LODs down

391

to the attomol range.

392

covers modifications of the entire protein sequence and is less-labour intense, which allows fast

393

investigation of structurally similar proteoforms of multiple biomarkers. Among diverse immuno-

394

affinity formats applied in MS, functionalized super-paramagnetic beads have become very

395

popular because of their high versatility and easy workflow17, 91, 92. However, the application of

396

super-paramagnetic beads in top-down approaches is still rare. In this work we have evaluated

397

commercially available beads, which delivered robust antibody immobilization, low unspecific

398

binding, and high assay capacity. The high-throughput and the low sample consumption make

399

this method well suited for assessment of inflammation and renal status in large cohort studies.

88-90

In contrast, direct protein detection by immuno-MALDI-TOF MS



400

The assay is currently used for screening of different biobanks to obtain levels of biomarkers and

401

with-subject reproducibility measures in various healthy and clinical cohorts.

402 403


Page 20 of 32

Page 21 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


404 405 406 407 408 Table 1. Within- and Between-day Variation of Three Different Reference Samples CRP tSAA tS100A8/9 concn CV concn CV concn CV (µg/mL) (%) (µg/mL) (%) (µg/mL) (%) within-day variationa 5.6 4.9 12.6 4.9 1.7 3.8 2.2 4.4 5.3 4.8 1.0 5.0 0.7 4.0 1.7 4.5 0.6 7.5 between-day variationb 5.6 7.5 12.6 8.6 1.7 8.6 2.2 8.2 5.3 9.0 1.0 8.4 0.7 9.4 1.7 8.4 0.6 8.7

409 410

a

N=16

411

b

N=3 x 10d

412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421


tCysC concn CV (µg/mL) (%) 1.2 1.0 0.9

3.9 5.0 4.3

1.2 1.0 0.9

5.1 3.9 4.1


422

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

423

Supporting information. The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS

424

Publications website.

425

One table with sequences and molecular weights of investigated proteoforms and internal

426

standards; five figures showing standard curves for quantification of CRP, tSAA, tS100A8/9 and

427

tCysC, method comparison between immuno-MALDI MS and reference methods using Bland

428

Altman tests, mass spectra of SAA proteoforms, relative abundances of SAA proteoforms in 80

429

human plasma samples, and variability of SAA, S100A8/9 and CysC proteoforms among 80

430

human plasma samples.

431

AUTHOR INFORMATION

432

Corresponding author

433

*E-mail: [email protected]

434 435

ORCID

436

Jie Gao:

0000-0002-8477-5318

437

Klaus Meyer:

0000-0002-2145-7777

438

Katrin Borucki:

0000-0003-3648-2657

439

Per Magne Ueland:

0000-0002-1903-0571

440

441

Notes

442

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

443 444


Page 22 of 32

Page 23 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490


References (1) Anderson, N. L. Clin Chem 2010, 56, 177-185. (2) Boschetti, E.; D'Amato, A.; Candiano, G.; Righetti, P. G. J Proteomics 2017, 17, 3028530293. (3) Nedelkov, D.; Kiernan, U. A.; Niederkofler, E. E.; Tubbs, K. A.; Nelson, R. W. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102, 10852-10857. (4) Walsh, G.; Jefferis, R. Nat Biotechnol 2006, 24, 1241-1252. (5) Nelson, R. W.; Krone, J. R.; Bieber, A. L.; Williams, P. Anal Chem 1995, 67, 1153-1158. (6) Kiernan, U. A.; Phillips, D. A.; Trenchevska, O.; Nedelkov, D. PloS one 2011, 6, e17282. (7) Kelleher, N. L.; Lin, H. Y.; Valaskovic, G. A.; Aaserud, D. J.; Fridriksson, E. K.; McLafferty, F. W. J Am Chem Soc 1999, 121, 806-812. (8) Chait, B. T. Science 2006, 314, 65-66. (9) Kaufmann, R. J Biotechnol 1995, 41, 155-175. (10) Cho, Y. T.; Su, H.; Wu, W. J.; Wu, D. C.; Hou, M. F.; Kuo, C. H.; Shiea, J. Adv Clin Chem 2015, 69, 209-254. (11) Trenchevska, O.; Nedelkov, D. Proteome Sci 2011, 9, 19-26. (12) Meyer, K.; Ueland, P. M. Anal Chem 2014, 86, 5807-5814. (13) Patrie, S. M.; Mrksich, M. Anal Chem 2007, 79, 5878-5887. (14) Kim, Y. E.; Yi, S. Y.; Lee, C. S.; Jung, Y.; Chung, B. H. Analyst 2012, 137, 386-392. (15) Kiernan, U. A.; Tubbs, K. A.; Gruber, K.; Nedelkov, D.; Niederkofler, E. E.; Williams, P.; Nelson, R. W. Anal Biochem 2002, 301, 49-56. (16) Chou, P.-H.; Chen, S.-H.; Liao, H.-K.; Lin, P.-C.; Her, G.-R.; Lai, A. C.-Y.; Chen, J.-H.; Lin, C.-C.; Chen, Y.-J. Anal Chem 2005, 77, 5990-5997. (17) Sparbier, K.; Wenzel, T.; Dihazi, H.; Blaschke, S.; Muller, G. A.; Deelder, A.; Flad, T.; Kostrzewa, M. Proteomics 2009, 9, 1442-1450. (18) Suzuki, T.; Israr, M. Z.; Heaney, L. M.; Takaoka, M.; Squire, I. B.; Ng, L. L. Clin Chem 2017, 63, 880-886. (19) Krastins, B.; Prakash, A.; Sarracino, D. A.; Nedelkov, D.; Niederkofler, E. E.; Kiernan, U. A.; Nelson, R.; Vogelsang, M. S.; Vadali, G.; Garces, A.; Sutton, J. N.; Peterman, S.; Byram, G.; Darbouret, B.; Perusse, J. R.; Seidah, N. G.; Coulombe, B.; Gobom, J.; Portelius, E.; Pannee, J.; Blennow, K.; Kulasingam, V.; Couchman, L.; Moniz, C.; Lopez, M. F. Clin Biochem 2013, 46, 399-410. (20) Tubbs, K. A.; Nedelkov, D.; Nelson, R. W. Anal Biochem 2001, 289, 26-35. (21) Brun, V.; Dupuis, A.; Adrait, A.; Marcellin, M.; Thomas, D.; Court, M.; Vandenesch, F.; Garin, J. Mol Cell Proteomics 2007, 6, 2139-2149. (22) Wellen, K. E.; Hotamisligil, G. S. J Clin Invest 2005, 115, 1111-1119. (23) Grivennikov, S. I.; Greten, F. R.; Karin, M. Cell 2010, 140, 883-899. (24) Fernandez-Sanchez, A.; Madrigal-Santillan, E.; Bautista, M.; Esquivel-Soto, J.; MoralesGonzalez, A.; Esquivel-Chirino, C.; Durante-Montiel, I.; Sanchez-Rivera, G.; Valadez-Vega, C.; Morales-Gonzalez, J. A. Int J Mol Sci 2011, 12, 3117-3132. (25) Franks, A. L.; Slansky, J. E. Anticancer Res 2012, 32, 1119-1136. (26) Guarner, V.; Rubio-Ruiz, M. E. Interdiscip Top Gerontol 2015, 40, 99-106. (27) Pepys, M. B.; Hirschfield, G. M. J Clin Invest 2003, 111, 1805-1812. (28) Eisenhardt, S. U.; Thiele, J. R.; Bannasch, H.; Stark, G. B.; Peter, K. Cell Cycle 2009, 8, 3885-3892. (29) Ridker, P. M.; Buring, J. E.; Cook, N. R.; Rifai, N. Circulation 2003, 107, 391-397. 23 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537

(30) Kaptoge, S.; Di Angelantonio, E.; Lowe, G.; Pepys, M. B.; Thompson, S. G.; Collins, R.; Danesh, J. Lancet 2010, 375, 132-140. (31) Heikkila, K.; Ebrahim, S.; Lawlor, D. A. J Epidemiol Commun H 2007, 61, 824-832. (32) Eklund, K. K.; Niemi, K.; Kovanen, P. T. Crit Rev Immunol 2012, 32, 335-348. (33) De Buck, M.; Gouwy, M.; Wang, J. M.; Van Snick, J.; Opdenakker, G.; Struyf, S.; Van Damme, J. Curr Med Chem 2016, 23, 1725-1755. (34) Kiernan, U. A.; Tubbs, K. A.; Nedelkov, D.; Niederkofler, E. E.; Nelson, R. W. FEBS Lett 2003, 537, 166-170. (35) Hua, S.; Song, C.; Geczy, C. L.; Freedman, S. B.; Witting, P. K. Redox Rep 2009, 14, 187196. (36) King, V. L.; Thompson, J.; Tannock, L. R. Curr Opin Lipidol 2011, 22, 302-307. (37) Zewinger, S.; Drechsler, C.; Kleber, M. E.; Dressel, A.; Riffel, J.; Triem, S.; Lehmann, M.; Kopecky, C.; Saemann, M. D.; Lepper, P. M.; Silbernagel, G.; Scharnagl, H.; Ritsch, A.; Thorand, B.; de Las Heras Gala, T.; Wagenpfeil, S.; Koenig, W.; Peters, A.; Laufs, U.; Wanner, C.; Fliser, D.; Speer, T.; Marz, W. Eur Heart J 2015, 36, 3007-3016. (38) Marhaug, G.; Dowton, S. B. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol 1994, 8, 553-573. (39) Hwang, Y. G.; Balasubramani, G. K.; Metes, I. D.; Levesque, M. C.; Bridges, S. L., Jr.; Moreland, L. W. Arthritis Res Ther 2016, 18, 108-116. (40) Jylhava, J.; Haarala, A.; Eklund, C.; Pertovaara, M.; Kahonen, M.; Hutri-Kahonen, N.; Levula, M.; Lehtimaki, T.; Huupponen, R.; Jula, A.; Juonala, M.; Viikari, J.; Raitakari, O.; Hurme, M. Journal of Internal Medicine 2009, 266, 286-295. (41) Malle, E.; Sodin-Semrl, S.; Kovacevic, A. Cell Mol Life Sci 2009, 66, 9-26. (42) Yassine, H. N.; Trenchevska, O.; He, H.; Borges, C. R.; Nedelkov, D.; Mack, W.; Kono, N.; Koska, J.; Reaven, P. D.; Nelson, R. W. PloS one 2015, 10, e0115320. (43) Rosin, D. L.; Okusa, M. D. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011, 22, 416-425. (44) Schiopu, A.; Cotoi, O. S. Mediat Inflamm 2013, 2013, e828354. (45) Hessian, P. A.; Fisher, L. Eur J Biochem 2001, 268, 353-363. (46) De Seny, D.; Fillet, M.; Ribbens, C.; Marée, R.; Meuwis, M.-A.; Lutteri, L.; Chapelle, J.-P.; Wehenkel, L.; Louis, E.; Merville, M.-P. Clin Chem 2008, 54, 1066-1075. (47) Korndorfer, I. P.; Brueckner, F.; Skerra, A. J Mol Biol 2007, 370, 887-898. (48) Vogl, T.; Roth, J.; Sorg, C.; Hillenkamp, F.; Strupat, K. J Am Soc Mass Spectr 1999, 10, 1124-1130. (49) Vogl, T.; Leukert, N.; Barczyk, K.; Strupat, K.; Roth, J. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006, 1763, 1298-1306. (50) Van Rheenen, P. F.; Van de Vijver, E.; Fidler, V. Brit Med J 2010, 341, c3369. (51) Hammer, H. B.; Odegard, S.; Fagerhol, M. K.; Landewe, R.; van der Heijde, D.; Uhlig, T.; Mowinckel, P.; Kvien, T. K. Ann Rheum Dis 2007, 66, 1093-1097. (52) Larsson, P. T.; Hallerstam, S.; Rosfors, S.; Wallen, N. H. Int Angiol 2005, 24, 43-51. (53) Pedersen, L.; Nybo, M.; Poulsen, M. K.; Henriksen, J. E.; Dahl, J.; Rasmussen, L. M. BMC Cardiovasc Disor 2014, 14, 196-203. (54) Ghavami, S.; Chitayat, S.; Hashemi, M.; Eshraghi, M.; Chazin, W. J.; Halayko, A. J.; Kerkhoff, C. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2009, 625, 73-83. (55) Raimundo, M.; Lopes, J. A. Cardiol Res Pract 2011, 2011, 747861. (56) Hernandez, S. S. a. G. T. J Nephropathol. 2014, 3, 99-104. (57) Dharnidharka, V. R.; Kwon, C.; Stevens, G. Am J Kidney Dis 2002, 40, 221-226. (58) Roos, J. F.; Doust, J.; Tett, S. E.; Kirkpatrick, C. M. Clin Biochem 2007, 40, 383-391. (59) Uchida, K.; Gotoh, A. Clin Chim Acta 2002, 323, 121-128. 24 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 24 of 32

Page 25 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583


(60) Koc, M.; Batur, M. K.; Karaarslan, O.; Abali, G. Cardiol J 2010, 17, 374-380. (61) Angelidis, C.; Deftereos, S.; Giannopoulos, G.; Anatoliotakis, N.; Bouras, G.; Hatzis, G.; Panagopoulou, V.; Pyrgakis, V.; Cleman, M. W. Curr Top Med Chem 2013, 13, 164-179. (62) Wilson, M. E.; Boumaza, I.; Lacomis, D.; Bowser, R. PLoS One 2010, 5, e15133. (63) Mathews, P. M.; Levy, E. Ageing Res Rev 2016, 32, 38-50. (64) Trenchevska, O.; Nedelkov, D. Proteome Sci 2011, 9, (65) Nedelkov, D.; Shainag, S.; Trenchevska, O.; Aleksovski, V.; Mitrevski, A.; Stojanoski, K. Open Proteomics J 2008, 1, 54-58. (66) Yassine, H. N.; Trenchevska, O.; Dong, Z.; Bashawri, Y.; Koska, J.; Reaven, P. D.; Nelson, R. W.; Nedelkov, D. Proteome Sci 2016, 14, 7-15. (67) Trenchevska, O.; Koska, J.; Sinari, S.; Yassine, H.; Reaven, P. D.; Billheimer, D. D.; Nelson, R. W.; Nedelkov, D. Clinical Mass Spectrometry 2016, 1, 27-31. (68) Wenzel T1, S. K., Mieruch T, Kostrzewa M. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2006, 20, 785793. (69) International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Validation of analytical procedures: Text and Methodology 1996, Geneva, (70) Passing, H.; Bablok J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983, 21, 709-720. (71) Bland, J. M.; Altman, D. G. Lancet 1986, 1, 307-310. (72) http://www.acomed-statistik.de/, (73) Kiernan, U. A.; Addobbati, R.; Nedelkov, D.; Nelson, R. W. J Proteome Res 2006, 5, 16821687. (74) Trenchevska, O.; Yassine, H. N.; Borges, C. R.; Nelson, R. W.; Nedelkov, D. Biomarkers 2016, 1-9. (75) Wang, K.-Y.; Chuang, S.-A.; Lin, P.-C.; Huang, L.-S.; Chen, S.-H.; Ouarda, S.; Pan, W.-H.; Lee, P.-Y.; Lin, C.-C.; Chen, Y.-J. Anal Chem 2008, 80, 6159-6167. (76) Aziz, N.; Fahey, J. L.; Detels, R.; Butch, A. W. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2003, 10, 652-657. (77) Erlandsen, E. J.; Randers, E.; Kristensen, J. H. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999, 59, 1-8. (78) Gislefoss, R. E.; Grimsrud, T. K.; Morkrid, L. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009, 47, 596-603. (79) Doumatey, A. P.; Zhou, J.; Adeyemo, A.; Rotimi, C. Clin Biochem 2014, 47, 315-318. (80) Biovendor Biovendor Product Brochure 2014, (81) Hillstrom, A.; Tvedten, H.; Lilliehook, I. Acta Vet Scand 2010, 52, 8. (82) Ton, H.; Brandsnes; Dale, S.; Holtlund, J.; Skuibina, E.; Schjonsby, H.; Johne, B. Clin Chim Acta 2000, 292, 41-54. (83) Tothova, C.; Nagy, O.; Seidel, H.; Kovac, G. Vet Med Int 2012, 2012, 861458. (84) Thermoscientific User Guide: Pierce NHS-Activated Magnetic Beads 2013, (85) Nilsen, T.; Sunde, K.; Larsson, A. J. Inflamm. 2015, 12, 1-8. (86) Schwedler, S. B.; Amann, K.; Wernicke, K.; Krebs, A.; Nauck, M.; Wanner, C.; Potempa, L. A.; Galle, J. Circulation 2005, 112, 1016-1023. (87) Yasar, O.; Akcay, T.; Obek, C.; Turegun, F. A. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2017, 77, 437-441. (88) Weiss, F.; van den Berg, B. H.; Planatscher, H.; Pynn, C. J.; Joos, T. O.; Poetz, O. Biochim Biophys Acta 2013, 927-932. (89) Anderson, N. L.; Anderson, N. G.; Haines, L. R.; Hardie, D. B.; Olafson, R. W.; Pearson, T. W. J Proteome Res 2004, 3, 235-244. (90) Jiang, J.; Parker, C. E.; Hoadley, K. A.; Perou, C. M.; Boysen, G.; Borchers, C. H. Proteomics Clin Appl 2007, 1, 1651-1659. 25 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


584 585 586

(91) Villanueva, J.; Philip, J.; Entenberg, D.; Chaparro, C. A.; Tanwar, M. K.; Holland, E. C.; Tempst, P. Anal Chem 2004, 76, 1560-1570. (92) Peter, J. F.; Otto, A. M. Proteomics 2010, 10, 628-633.

587 588


Page 26 of 32

Page 27 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


589

Figure legends

590

Figure 1. Description of the immuno-MALDI-TOF MS assay. The method consists of four

591

steps starting with preparation of magnetic beads, followed by protein enrichment, protein elution

592

and finally quantification by MALDI MS. The fundamental reactions (A) and the work flow (B)

593

are illustrated for each step. First, antibodies were linked to superparamagnetic beads by covalent

594

conjugation of the antibody’s primary amines with N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS)-esters of the

595

functionalized beads. Linking was performed separately for each antibody, which had been

596

diluted to equal concentrations of 0.5 µg/ml. Beads were mixed in equal amounts prior sample

597

purification. 20 µl of each serum/plasma sample was spiked with 20 µl internal standard (IS) and

598

was incubated with 10 µl of beads for 1h, processed in 96-microtiter plates. After protein

599

enrichment, beads were washed 2 times both with Tris-buffered saline (TBS) and ultrapure water

600

using a 96-well magnet plate for separation of the beads from the liquids. Proteins were released

601

from the antibodies adding 9 µl of 0.1 M glycine solution. Beads were collected by the magnet

602

plate and the supernatant was transferred into a new microtiter plate. Finally, samples were mixed

603

intensely with 5 µl of 2,5-dihydroxyacetophenone (DHAP) matrix and 2 µl of the sample/matrix

604

solution was spotted onto an anchor target plate for quantification of the proteoforms by MALDI-

605

TOF MS.

606 607

Figure 2. Four-plex immuno-MALDI-TOF MS spectrum of a human plasma sample. Mass

608

spectra of the enriched proteoforms and internal standards were acquired in reflector ion mode

609

and ranged from 5 - 24 kDa. Signals were assigned to three different patterns at 5 - 8 kDa, 10 - 15

610

kDa and 22 - 24 kDa. Mass signals between 5 and 8 kDa were doubly charged proteoforms, while

611

the other patterns mainly consisted of singly charged proteoforms with exception of (CRP+2H)2+.

612

The mass pattern at 10 - 15 kDa was shown in detail (inset) and included all investigated 27 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


613

proteoforms and internal standards (not all SAA truncations were labelled). Due to the mass

614

interference of (CRP+2H)2+ with the truncation des-R SAA1.1, proteoforms of SAA were

615

analyzed by their doubly charged signals (5.6 - 5.8 kDa), while CRP was quantified by its singly

616

charged species (22 - 24 kDa). Since the signal-to-noise ratio of (CRP+H)+ was 4x higher in

617

linear mode (inset), samples were prepared twice and analyzed in both ion modes to achieve

618

optimal signal quality with respect to resolution and sensitivity.

619 620

Figure 3. Method comparison between immuno-MALDI-TOF MS and reference techniques

621

using Passing-Bablok regression. Comparison demonstrated linear relationships for all markers

622

with R2 ranging from 0.963 to 0.913. Best between-assay agreements were obtained for CRP and

623

CysC. Significant difference of the slope from one was obtained for SAA. Significant deviation

624

of the intercept from zero was observed for all markers and was highest for S100A8/9 and SAA.

625

Analyses of SAA were limited to 25 of the 80 reference samples due to saturation of ELISA for

626

values > 12 µg/mL.


Page 28 of 32

Page 29 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47



1. Beads preparation

2. Protein enrichment


4. Quantification

3. Protein elution

Protein Internal 1 standard + 2 3 4 B. Work flow 5 6 4-plex mixture 2 cycles 2 cycles 7 10µl 8 anti-CRP anti-SAA anti-S100A8/9 anti-CysC 9 10 11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment 12 Spiked Incubation Washing Washing Elution with Antibodies linked to NHS-activated magnetic beads sample (40µl) for 1h with TBS with water 9µl glycine 13 14

Page 30 of 32

Intensity

A. Reactions

+ +

O

O

N

H2N

H2N

O

O

NH2

NH2

NH

NH

O

O

NH

O

m/z

+ +

2µl

_++ 5µl matrix (2,5-DHAP) MALDI-TOF MS

1/2

t~m

S100A8/9-His

SAA1.1

Page 31 of 32 Analytical Chemistry CRP2+

des-R SAA1.1

CysC-OH

SAA2.1

CysC

CRP-His2+

S100A8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

des-S CysC

des-R SAA2.1

CysC-His

des-M S100A9-O2

4

x10

des-MTCKM S100A9

SAA1.12+ /SAA2.12+

2.0

Relative intensity (a.u.)

des-S CysC-OH S100A9-O2

des-SSP CysC

SAA-His

1.5

11000

12000

13000

1.0

14000

CRP CRP-His

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

0.5

Linear mode

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

m/z

15000 m/z

14

N = 80

80

1 60 2 40 3 20 4 0 0 5 6 20 7 18 16 8 14 9 12 10 10 8 11 64 12 2 13 0 0 14

Concentration immuno-MALDI MS (μg/ml)

Analytical Chemistry tSAA 12

CRP


100

R2 = 0.963 slope (95% CI): 1.052 (0.999, 1.119) intercept (95% CI): -0.4815 (-0.718, -0.256)

20

40

60

80

Page 32 of 32

R2 = 0.958 slope (95% CI): 0.887 (0.754, 0.967) intercept (95% CI): -1.259 (-1.458, -0.864)

10

N = 25

8 6 4 2 0

100

Concentration Turbidimetry (μg/ml)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Concentration ELISA (μg/ml)

12

7 tS100A8/9 N = 80



120

tCysC

6

N = 80

5 4 3 2


R2 = 0.913 slope (95% CI): 1.059 (0.991, 1.160) intercept (95% CI): 2.026 (1.703, 2.279)

2

4

6

8

10

Concentration ELISA (μg/ml)

12

0

R2 = 0.963 slope (95% CI): 0.996 (0.941, 1.059) intercept (95% CI): 0.078 (0.018, 0.154)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Concentration Nephelometry (μg/ml)

Multiplex Immuno-MALDI-TOF MS for Targeted ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents