4.7 Article

Assessment of Two Immunodepletion Methods: Off-Target Effects and Variations in Immunodepletion Efficiency May Confound Plasma Proteomics

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages 5947-5958

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr300686k

Keywords

immunodepletion; Seppro; IgY; Qproteome; iTRAQ; EMMOL normalization; off-target

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [RC2 HL101713]
  2. National Cancer Institute [N01-CN-43309]
  3. Driskill Foundation [P30CA06927]
  4. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
  5. Pew Charitable Trust
  6. Kresge Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunodepletion of abundant plasma proteins increases the depth of proteome penetration by mass spectrometry. However, the nature and extent of immunodepletion and the effect of off-target depletion on the quantitative comparison of the residual proteins have not been critically addressed. We performed mass spectrometry label-free quantitation to determine which proteins were immunodepleted and by how much. Two immunodepletion resins were compared: Qproteome (Qiagen) which removes albumin + immunoglobulins and Seppro IgY14 + SuperMix (Sigma-Aldrich) which removes 14 target proteins plus a number of unidentified proteins. Plasma collected by P100 proteomic plasma collection tubes (BD) from 20 human subjects was when using only albumin + immunoglobulins removal (Qproteome), while lower abundance proteins were evaluated better using exhaustive immunodepletion (Seppro IgY14 + SuperMix). The latter resin removed at least 155 proteins, 38% of the plasma proteome in protein number and 94% of plasma protein in mass. The depth of immunodepletion likely accounts for the effectiveness of this resin in revealing low abundance proteins. However, the more profound immunodepletion achieved with the IgY14 + SuperMix may lead to false-positive fold-changes between comparison groups if the reproducibility and efficiency of the depletion of a given protein are not considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available