Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36380282›Full record

ArticleClinical proteomics2022

Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE.

Anthony Maus, Dan Figdore, Dragana Milosevic, Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich, Joshua Bornhorst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical proteomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anthony MausDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Maus.anthony@mayo.edu.
Dan FigdoreDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Dragana MilosevicDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Alicia Algeciras-SchimnichDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Joshua BornhorstDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotyping has been shown to have diagnostic value in the evaluation of cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease. Although genetic testing is well established for this application, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) has the potential to provide a high throughput, low-cost alternative for ApoE evaluation.

methodsSerum samples were analyzed by peptide, intact protein, and genomic techniques. For peptide analysis, samples were digested with trypsin followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis (LC-MS/MS) using a high-throughput multichannel LC system coupled to a Sciex 7500 mass spectrometer. For intact protein analysis, ApoE was immuno-purified using a monoclonal antibody immobilized on magnetic beads followed by high-resolution LC-MS analysis using an Exploris 480. DNA was extracted and evaluated using Sanger sequencing as a reference method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The peptide measurement method produced one discrepant result when compared to genomic sequencing (out of 38 sequenced samples), whereas the intact protein analysis followed by deconvolution resulted in two discrepant results and when the intact protein data was processed with chromatographic integration there were three discrepant results. Therefore, the intact protein method proved slightly less accurate, required longer analysis time, and is substantially more costly, while providing only a 30 min improvement in sample preparation time.

conclusionsWith current MS technology clinical laboratories appear to be better served to utilize trypsin digest sample preparation and LC-MS/MS as opposed to high-resolution LC-MS intact protein analysis techniques for evaluation of ApoE proteotype. Peptide analysis methods are capable of producing accurate results with high throughput and minimal cost.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseApolipoprotein EHigh-resolution mass spectrometryTandem mass spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID36380282
PMCPMC9664673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.