Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41420744›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026

Comparative evaluation of immunoaffinity and antibody-free isotope dilution mass spectrometry approaches for plasma ProGRP quantification.

Jiahui Li, Huan Yao, Qiaoxuan Zhang, Yuqi Yan, Xinling Cui, Xianzhang Huang, Wenjing Xing, Huanyu Ju, Dewei Song, Peng Xiao and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. 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. Article
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

11 authors.

Jiahui LiHarbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, P.R. China.
Huan YaoNational Institute of Metrology, Beijing, 100029, P.R. China. yaohuan@nim.ac.cn.
Qiaoxuan ZhangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Guangzhou, 510120, P.R. China.
Yuqi YanHarbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, P.R. China.
Xinling CuiDepartment of Bioengineering, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, 100048, P.R. China.
Xianzhang HuangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Guangzhou, 510120, P.R. China.
Wenjing XingHarbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, P.R. China.
Huanyu JuHarbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, P.R. China.
Dewei SongNational Institute of Metrology, Beijing, 100029, P.R. China.
Peng XiaoNational Institute of Metrology, Beijing, 100029, P.R. China. xiaop@nim.ac.cn.
Jian MaHarbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, P.R. China. jma@hrbmu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Institute of Metrology Fundamental Research Project AKYKF2415National Natural Science Foundation of China 22304169National Science and Technology Major Project 2022YFF0710301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) is a critical technique for the quantification of protein biomarkers in complex biological samples, enabling sensitive measurement through integration with sample preparation to eliminate matrix interference. Nevertheless, the interchangeability between distinct pretreatment strategies is poorly defined. Herein, two traceable IDMS methods, immune mass spectrometry (IMS) and direct mass spectrometry (DMS), that combine immunoaffinity or antibody-free pretreatment were established for the quantification of plasma ProGRP, which is a recognized biomarker for small cell lung cancer. The internal standard curve was established using NLLGLIEAK, an enzymatic hydrolysis peptide of ProGRP, and its isotope-labeled molecule to ensure quantitative traceability. A microliter high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry platform was established for sensitive quantification of ProGRP in the range of 0.398-13.8 ng/mL. Correction factors were introduced to eliminate the effects of protein loss and enzyme digestion efficiency on the quantitative results, which were 86.84% for IMS and 85.48% for DMS. The RSDs of IMS and DMS were 5.5% and 4.3%, respectively. The comparability among the established MS methods and two immune methods was studied using plasma from patients with abnormally high expression of ProGRP. The IMS and DMS results showed good consistency and good correlation with the results of clinical chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), while the correlation between CLIA and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) results was poor. The factors affecting quantification accuracy by MS analysis and immunoassay were discussed, revealing the potential of IMS and DMS as reference measurement procedures for protein biomarkers in complex matrices.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorMass SpectrometryPeptide FragmentsTandem Mass SpectrometryChromatography, High Pressure LiquidHumansImmunoassayIndicator Dilution TechniquesIsotope LabelingLimit of DetectionRecombinant ProteinsReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, TumorPeptide Fragmentspro-gastrin-releasing peptide (31-98)Recombinant ProteinsConsistencyImmunoassayMass spectrometryProGRPSample pretreatmentSignature peptide

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.