4.7 Article

Monitoring M-Proteins in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Using Heavy-Chain Variable Region Clonotypic Peptides and LC-MS/MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 1905-1910

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr5000544

关键词

multiple myeloma; mass spectrometry; peptide; variable region; clonotypic; M-protein; digest; specificity; individualized; biomarker; SRM; proteotypic

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA062242] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple myeloma is a disease characterized by a clonal expansion of plasma cells that secrete a monoclonal immunoglobulin also referred to as an M-protein. In the clinical laboratory, protein electrophoresis (PEL), immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE), and free light chain nephelometry (FLC) are used to detect, monitor, and quantify an M-protein. Here, we present an alternative method based on monitoring a clonotypic (i.e., clone-specific) peptide from the M-protein heavy chain variable region using LC- MS/MS. Tryptic digests were performed on IgG purified serum from 10 patients with a known IgG M-protein. Digests were analyzed by shotgun LC- 1 MS/MS, and the results were searched against a protein database with the patient specific, heavy chain variable region gene sequence added to the database searching database. In all 10 cases, the protein database search matched multiple clonotypic peptides from each patient's heavy chain variable region. The clonotypic peptides were then used to quantitate the amount of M-protein in patient serum samples using selected reaction monitoring (SRM) on a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. The response for the clonotypic peptide observed by SRM correlated with the M-protein observed by PEL. In addition, the clonotypic peptide was clearly observed by SRM in samples that were negative by IFE and FLC. Monitoring clonotypic peptides using SRM has the capacity to redefine clinical residual disease because of its superior sensitivity and specificity compared with current analytical methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据