Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Department of Ophthalmology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020 Sep 2;9(10):3. doi: 10.1167/tvst.9.10.3. eCollection 2020 Sep.
To evaluate the feasibility of using the Proximity Extension Assay (PEA) platform to detect biomarkers in vitreous and to compare the findings with results obtained with an electrochemiluminescent (ECL) sandwich immunoassay.
Vitreous samples from patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and non-diabetic controls were tested using two different proteomics platforms. Forty-one assays were completed with the ECL platform and 459 with the PEA platform. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient ( ) was used to determine the direction and strength of the relationship between protein levels detected by both platforms.
Three hundred sixty-six PEA assays detected the tested protein in at least 25% of samples, and the difference in protein abundance between PDR and controls was statistically significant for 262 assays. Seventeen ECL assays yielded a detection rate ≥ 25%, and the difference in protein concentration between PDR and controls was statistically significant for 13 proteins. There was a subset of proteins that were detected by both platforms, and for those the Spearman's correlation coefficient was higher than 0.8.
PEA is suitable for the analysis of vitreous samples, showing a strong correlation with the ECL platform. The detection rate of PEA panels was higher than the panels tested with ECL. The levels of several proinflammatory and angiogenic cytokines were significantly higher in PDR vitreous compared to controls.
This study provides new information on the yields of small-volume assays that can detect proteins of interest in ocular specimens, and it identifies patterns of cytokine dysregulation in PDR.
评估使用邻近延伸分析(PEA)平台检测玻璃体液生物标志物的可行性,并将结果与电化学发光(ECL)夹心免疫测定法的结果进行比较。
使用两种不同的蛋白质组学平台检测增生性糖尿病视网膜病变(PDR)和非糖尿病对照患者的玻璃体样本。使用 ECL 平台完成了 41 项检测,使用 PEA 平台完成了 459 项检测。采用 Spearman 秩相关系数( )确定两种平台检测到的蛋白质水平之间的关系方向和强度。
366 项 PEA 检测在至少 25%的样本中检测到了测试蛋白,并且在 262 项检测中 PDR 和对照组之间的蛋白丰度差异具有统计学意义。17 项 ECL 检测的检出率≥25%,并且在 13 种蛋白质中,PDR 和对照组之间的蛋白浓度差异具有统计学意义。有一组蛋白质被两种平台同时检测到,对于这些蛋白质,Spearman 相关系数高于 0.8。
PEA 适用于玻璃体样本的分析,与 ECL 平台具有很强的相关性。PEA 检测板的检测率高于 ECL 检测板。与对照组相比,PDR 玻璃体中几种促炎和血管生成细胞因子的水平明显升高。
曹加慧