Arrigo Mattia, Vodovar Nicolas, Von Moos Seraina, Masson Elisabeth, Segerer Stephan, Cippà Pietro E, Mebazaa Alexandre
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
INSERM, UMR-S 942, Paris, France.
J Clin Lab Anal. 2018 Oct;32(8):e22574. doi: 10.1002/jcla.22574. Epub 2018 May 23.
Novel multiplex assays allow the simultaneous identification of a large number of plasma proteins. While these new technologies have been shown to be highly sensitive and accurate for the identification of plasma proteins, the use of this technology to quantify those proteins has not been properly investigated. In this pilot study, we tested the accuracy of the proximity extension assay (PEA) for the quantification of the cardiac biomarker brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) compared to a standard clinically approved method.
Concentrations of BNP were assessed in 120 plasma samples from 30 patients with PEA and compared to chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). Venous blood samples were collected from in tubes containing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, centrifuged within 6 hours at 3,500 rpm for 15 minutes at 4°C, frozen and stored at -80°C until analyzed. Correlation between the CMIA and PEA techniques was tested using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rho) and the agreement was described with a Bland-Altman plot.
Brain natriuretic peptide values obtained by CMIA and PEA were highly correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.865, P < .0001). In two patients, PEA consistently overestimated resp. underestimated BNP values compared to CMIA. After removal of those two patients, a very high correlation between the two techniques was shown (rho = 0.966, P < .0001). A high agreement between the two techniques over the whole range of tested concentrations was shown.
This pilot study showed for the first time an excellent correlation between a clinically approved method and the PEA-based approach for quantification of circulating plasma BNP.
新型多重检测方法能够同时鉴定大量血浆蛋白。虽然这些新技术已被证明在鉴定血浆蛋白方面具有高度敏感性和准确性，但利用该技术对这些蛋白进行定量分析尚未得到充分研究。在这项初步研究中，我们将邻近延伸分析（PEA）用于定量心脏生物标志物脑钠肽（BNP），并与标准临床认可方法进行比较，以测试其准确性。
采用PEA对30例患者的120份血浆样本中的BNP浓度进行评估，并与化学发光微粒子免疫分析（CMIA）进行比较。采集静脉血样本于含有乙二胺四乙酸的试管中，在4℃下以3500转/分钟离心15分钟，6小时内完成，然后冷冻并储存在-80℃直至分析。使用Spearman等级相关系数（rho）测试CMIA和PEA技术之间的相关性，并用Bland-Altman图描述一致性。
CMIA和PEA获得的脑钠肽值高度相关（Spearman's rho = 0.865，P <.000）。在两名患者中，与CMIA相比，PEA持续高估或低估BNP值。去除这两名患者后，两种技术之间显示出非常高的相关性（rho = 0.966，P <.000）。在整个测试浓度范围内，两种技术显示出高度一致性。
这项初步研究首次表明，临床认可方法与基于PEA的循环血浆BNP定量方法之间具有极好的相关性。
