4.6 Review

Amyloid Typing by Mass Spectrometry in Clinical Practice: a Comprehensive Review of 16, 175 Samples

Journal

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
Volume 95, Issue 9, Pages 1852-1864

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.06.029

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To map the occurrence of amyloid types in a large clinical cohort using mass spectrometry-based shotgun proteomics, an unbiased method that unambiguously identifies all amyloid types in a single assay. Methods: A mass spectrometry-based shotgun proteomics assay was implemented in a central reference laboratory. We documented our experience of typing 16,175 amyloidosis specimens over an 11-year period from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018. Results: We identified 21 established amyloid types, including AL (n=9542; 59.0%), ATTR (n=4600; 28.4%), ALECT2 (n=511; 3.2%), AA (n=463; 2.9%), AH (n=367; 2.3%), AIns (n=182; 1.2%), KRT514 (n=94; <1%), AFib (n=71; <1%), AApoAIV (n=57; <1%), AApoA1 (n=56; <1%), AANF (n=47; <1%), A beta 2M (n=38; <1%), ASem1 (n=34; <1%), AGel (n=29; <1%), TGFB1 (n=29; <1%), ALys (n=15; <1%), AIAPP (n=13; <1%), AApoCII (n=11; <1%), APro (n=8; <1%), AEnf (n=6; <1%), and ACal (n=2; <1%). We developed the first comprehensive organ-by-type map showing the relative frequency of 21 amyloid types in 31 different organs, and the first type-by-organ map showing organ tropism of 18 rare types. Using a modified bioinformatics pipeline, we detected amino acid substitutions in cases of hereditary amyloidosis with 100% specificity. Conclusion: Amyloid typing by proteomics, which effectively recognizes all amyloid types in a single assay, optimally supports the diagnosis and treatment of amyloidosis patients in routine clinical practice. (C) 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available