Comparison of serum, EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for luminex-based biomarker multiplex assays in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the SPIROMICS study

Abstract

BackgroundAs a part of the longitudinal Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) study, Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD study (SPIROMICS), blood samples are being collected from 3200 subjects with the goal of identifying blood biomarkers for sub-phenotyping patients and predicting disease progression. To determine the most reliable sample type for measuring specific blood analytes in the cohort, a pilot study was performed from a subset of 24 subjects comparing serum, Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma, and EDTA plasma with proteinase inhibitors (P100™).Methods105 analytes, chosen for potential relevance to COPD, arranged in 12 multiplex and one simplex platform (Myriad-RBM) were evaluated in duplicate from the three sample types from 24 subjects. The reliability coefficient and the coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated. The performance of each analyte and mean analyte levels were evaluated across sample types.Results20% of analytes were not consistently detectable in any sample type. Higher reliability and/or smaller CV were determined for 12 analytes in EDTA plasma compared to serum, and for 11 analytes in serum compared to EDTA plasma. While reliability measures were similar for EDTA plasma and P100 plasma for a majority of analytes, CV was modestly increased in P100 plasma for eight analytes. Each analyte within a multiplex produced independent measurement characteristics, complicating selection of sample type for individual multiplexes.ConclusionsThere were notable detectability and measurability differences between serum and plasma. Multiplexing may not be ideal if large reliability differences exist across analytes measured within the multiplex, especially if values differ based on sample type. For some analytes, the large CV should be considered during experimental design, and the use of duplicate and/or triplicate samples may be necessary. These results should prove useful for studies evaluating selection of samples for evaluation of potential blood biomarkers.

Affinity proteomics within rare diseases: a BIO‐NMD study for blood biomarkers of muscular dystrophies

“…Protein biomarker discovery studies in blood‐derived samples generally rely on findings revealed in one blood preparation type by screening a sample cohort from a single collection site. Yet, as demonstrated previously (Schwenk et al , ; Qundos et al , ; O'Neal et al , ) and in the presented study, different blood preparation types cause proteins to be detected differentially. Furthermore, despite the use of standardized sample collection, handling and storage protocols, it is difficult to retain identical conditions at and during transport from different clinical sites, where even subtle fluctuations might cause variations in the downstream analysis.…”

Validation of Raised Cord Blood Interleukin-16 in Perinatal Asphyxia and Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischaemic Encephalopathy in the BiHiVE2 Cohort

“…Changing between serum and plasma has been suggested to affect cytokine measurements [40,41], including measurements of IL-16, which is shown to yield lower levels in serum compared to plasma [42]. This lower yield was consistent in our study, where the medians of both the control group and the HIE group were lower compared to the original study.…”

Plasma markers of chronic low‐grade inflammation in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy and neovascular age‐related macular degeneration

“…Concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of immunological measurements using serum samples because of platelet activation and degranulation that consequently may alter the cytokine concentrations (O'Neal et al. ).…”