Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0281491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281491

A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients

Andrew Leslie 1, Evelyn Teh 1, Arik Druker 2,3, Devanand M Pinto 1,4,*
Editor: A M Abd El-Aty5
PMCID: PMC10309610  PMID: 37384615

Abstract

Osteopontin (OPN) is a secreted glycophosphoprotein that derives its name from its high abundance in bone and secretion by osteoblasts. It is also secreted by a number of immune cells and, therefore, is present in human plasma at nanogram per millilitre levels where it affects cell adhesion and motility. OPN is involved in several normal physiological processes; however, OPN dyregulation leads to overexpression by tumor cells leading to immune evasion and increased metastasis. Plasma OPN is primarily measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). However, due to the complexity of the various OPN isoforms, conflicting results have been obtained on the use of OPN as a biomarker even in the same disease condition. These discrepant results may result from the difficulty in comparing ELISA results obtained with different antibodies that target unique OPN epitopes. Mass spectrometry can be used to quantify proteins in plasma and, by targeting OPN regions that do not bear post-translational modifications, may provide more consistent quantification. However, the low (ng/mL) levels in plasma present a significant analytical challenge. In order to develop a sensitive assay for plasma OPN, we explored a single-step precipitation method using a recently developed spin-tube format. Quantification was performed using isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. The concentration detection limit of this assay was 39 ± 15 ng/mL. The assay was applied to the analysis of plasma OPN in metastatic breast cancer patients, where levels from 17 to 53 ng/mL were detected. The sensitivity of the method is higher than previously published methods and sufficient for OPN detection in large, high grade tumors but still requires improvement in sensitivity to be widely applicable.

Introduction

In spite of advances in early detection and improved treatment, breast cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women [1]. Biomarkers can impact breast cancer treatment by helping identify aggressive breast cancer sub-types (prognostic biomarkers) or enabling treatment selection (predictive biomarkers). Once validated, biomarkers are often pursued as therapeutic targets; the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is an excellent example. It was identified as a biomarker in 1987 [2] and Traztuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that specifically targets HER2, was approved in 1998. Traztuzumab and newer therapies targeting HER2, have dramatically improved breast cancer survival [3]. HER2 measurement is now used routinely to define prognosis and enable treatment selection. Osteopontin (OPN) is a glycophosphoprotein with a variety of functions in bone mineralization, cell adhesion, integrin signalling, T-cell suppression and cell motility. Dysregulation of OPN was implicated in the progression of several diseases, including breast cancer in 1993 [4] and, more recently, in several other solid tumors [5]. Unlike HER2, efforts to target OPN therapeutically have not progressed further than an unsuccessful phase I trial for inhibition of OPN in rheumatoid arthritis [6]. Therapeutic targeting of OPN is challenging due to the high circulating levels, isoform complexity and rapid protein turnover [7].

In spite of its small size (32 kDa), OPN possesses two integrin binding sites, one CD44 binding site, a thrombin cleavage site, seven glycosylation sites and up to twenty-nine phosphorylation sites [8]. In addition to post-translational modifications, alternative splicing gives rise to three variants, OPN-a, OPN-b and OPN-c [9]. This complexity presents challenges to both the design of both therapeutic and diagnostic assays for OPN. Nevertheless, using a novel monoclonal antibody against recombinant OPN, Singhal et al demonstrated that high plasma OPN levels were associated with deceased survival in metastatic breast patients [10]. Conversely, measurement of OPN levels in 253 breast cancer tumor samples concluded that OPN was not prognostic [11]. A more recent meta-analysis of high-quality studies with large patient cohorts and complete survival data, revealed that elevated tumor OPN is associated with a worse prognosis. Increased OPN was, on average, associated with a 3.7 times increase in the likelihood of death. However, the increased risk of death in individual studies ranged from 1 (no increase) to 21 times increased risk [12]. This large variability may be due to several factors, including variability in the methods used to quantify OPN.

The primary method for OPN quantification is the use of antibodies. However, the type of antibody and epitope targeted can vary significantly, perhaps leading to highly variable quantification. A recent study using in-house developed and commercial antibodies to measure plasma OPN levels in the same set of samples returned results that differed by over 300-fold, from 1.2 ng/mL to 396 ng/mL [13]. More recently, mass spectrometry (MS) based quantification of protein biomarkers has emerged as an alternative to antibody-based techniques. The relatively low levels OPN present in complex matrices complicates the analysis of OPN by MS. Nevertheless, techniques based on high-resolution mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry are well suited to high-sensitivity quantification in complex samples. MS is an inherently multiplexed technique and can target multiple OPN epitopes in a single analysis. Sensitivity and overall assay performance can be further enhanced by combining MS with affinity purification and liquid chromatography (LC).

Quantification of plasma OPN by MS was recently demonstrated by Faria et al using a liquid chromatography—tandem MS (LC-MS/MS) [14] and by Zhou et al using time-of-flight tandem MS (TOF-MS/MS) [15]. Zhou et al use the high resolution of TOF and the specificity of MS/MS fragmentation to measure OPN in plasma. They also optimise OPN extraction from plasma using the affinity of OPN for DEAE-Cibricon Blue in order to detect OPN at 1 μg/mL levels. Affinity methods are also used by Faria et al but in this case OPN is extracted from plasma using a commercial anti-OPN antibody that is immobilised on streptavidin-coated plates. They take advantage of the multiplexed nature of LC-MS/MS to incorporate a stable-isotope labelled (SIL) peptide as an internal standard and achieve a lower limit of quantification in plasma of 60.3 ng/mL for the signature peptide, GDSVVYGLR. In spite of these promising results, the measurement of multiple OPN epitopes at ng/ml levels in plasma by mass spectrometry has not been reported.

In this work, we develop a method for OPN quantification in plasma using LC-MS/MS that uses a direct, antibody-free approach for OPN extraction from plasma followed by quantification using isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. This simplified method makes use of protein precipitation, digestion and clean-up in a single device to minimise OPN losses. We evaluated several additional SIL peptides that correspond to OPN splice variants OPN-a, OPN-b and OPN-c since their roles in cancer are the most characterised amongst the several known OPN isoforms. {Briones-Orta, 2017 #29} The method is then applied to a series of plasma samples collected from metastatic breast cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Materials

LC-MS grade acetonitrile, HPLC grade isopropanol and lyophilized trypsin (Promega V5111) was purchased from Fischer Chemical. HPLC grade acetone was purchased from Caledon Laboratory Chemicals. ACS 98% grade formic acid was purchased from EMD Millipore. Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was purchased from Gibco. Multiple Affinity Removal Spin cartridges (MARS, HAS/IgG) were purchased from Agilent and ProTrap XG cartridges were purchased from Proteoform Inc. Ammonium bicarbonate was purchased from BioShop Canada Inc. A Milli-Q IQ 7000 system was used for water purification. Human pooled normal plasma purchased from Precision Biologic (ref#: CCN-10) was used for method development. Full length recombinant human osteopontin protein was purchased from Abcam (product number ab87460). Heavy-isotope labelled osteopontin tryptic peptides YPDAVATWLNPDPSQK, QNLLAPQNAVSSEETNDFK, AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR and ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK were purchased from ThermoScientific (AQUA Ultimate grade) consisting of 5 pmol/μL aliquots in 5% ACN in water. All C-terminal residues for the heavy-isotope peptides were labelled with 14C and 15N.

Patient samples

Peripheral blood (15 mL) was collected from 23 recurrent or newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer patients. Blood was drawn and stored in EDTA vacutainer tubes. Patient samples were collected between September 2010 –September 2013. The eligibility criteria were age over 18 years, confirmed diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer and active follow up at the Nova Scotia Cancer Centre. The study protocol was approved by the Capital Health Research Ethics Board (Study Identifier: CDHA-RS/2009-088), Halifax, Nova Scotia and the National Research Council of Canada (2009–10).

Methods

LC-MS/MS

Patient samples were analysed using an Agilent 1290 liquid chromatography (LC) system coupled to a QTRAP 5500 (AB Sciex Instruments) equipped with an ESI Turbo Spray ion source. The LC system consisted of a temperature controlled auto-sampler set to 5°C (G4226A), a binary pump (G4220A), a column oven (G1316C) and was equipped with a 3 μm, 1 mm x 15 cm Thermo Acclaim PepMap 100 column (ThermoScientific). A ColumnShield 0.5 μm frit (Canadian Life Science, AS-850-1050) was used as a pre-column filter. All separations were performed using a flow rate of 50 μL/min with a column temperature of 40°C and injection volume of 20 μL. Mobile phases used were water with 0.1% formic acid (A) and acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid (B). The following gradient was used for all separations: 5% B initially rising to 50% B at 20 minutes, 100% B held for 2 minutes then to 5% B in 2 minutes, a final 4 minute re-equilibration step at 5% B for a 30 minute total run time. Instrument settings for the QTRAP 5500 were as follows: source temperature 300°C, ion spray voltage 5500, curtain gas 10, collision gas 5, entrance potential 10, collision cell exit potential 13. The nebulizer and auxiliary gases were set to 25.

Protein precipitation

Metastatic breast cancer patient samples were processed using the ProTrap XG filter cartridge system. Samples were stored at -80°C and thawed on ice prior to analysis. 10 μL of thawed patient plasma was diluted with 90 μL of PBS and transferred to a plugged ProTrap XG filter cartridge. Immediately prior to the transfer of the diluted patient plasma, the filter of the ProTrap XG was wetted with 2 μL of isopropanol. The diluted plasma samples were then protein precipitated by the addition of 400 μL of acetone to the ProTrap XG filter cartridge. Samples were gently mixed by pipetting volumes up and down repeatedly and incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes. With the filter plug still attached the cartridge was placed in a 2 mL Eppendorf tube then centrifuged at 2500 x g for 2 minutes. The plug was then removed and the now unplugged filter cartridge was centrifuged for 500 x g for 3 minutes in a 2 mL Eppendorf tube with the flow-through being discarded. The protein pellet was washed by the addition of 400 μL of acetone to the filter cartridge and then centrifuged at 500 x g for 2 minutes discarding the flow-through. The plug was replaced and the cartridge filter was wetted with 2 μL of isopropanol. The protein pellet was resolubilized directly in the filter cartridge by adding 400 μL of 20 mM ammonium bicarbonate with repeated gentle aspiration followed by sonication for 10 minutes.

Protein digestion & internal standards

A spiking solution of heavy-isotope OPN peptides was prepared by adding 10 μL of each peptide aliquot to 840 μL PBS in a 1.5 mL Eppendorf tube. A trypsin solution was prepared by adding 40 μL of 20 mM ammonium bicarbonate to a vial of 20 μg lyophilized trypsin (0.5 μg/μL). 15 μL of heavy-isotope spiking solution followed by 10 μL of trypsin was then added to each filter cartridge containing resolubilized protein. Samples were incubated overnight at 37°C. Post incubation, samples were collected by placing the unplugged filter cartridge in a 2 mL Eppendorf tube and centrifuging at 2500 x g for 5 minutes. The cartridge filter was then washed by adding 200 μL of 80% ACN with 0.1% formic acid and centrifuged at 2500 x g for 5 minutes, collecting the flow-through in a 2 mL Eppendorf tube. For all samples, post-digest flow-throughs were combined, dried down and reconstituted in 5% ACN with 0.1% formic acid prior to LC MS analysis.

Results and discussion

MRM assay development

Peptides produced after tryptic digestion of recombinant OPN were analysed by LC-MS/MS in order to develop a sensitive and specific assay for plasma OPN. In order to provide coverage of the three well-described OPN isoforms, OPN-a, OPN-b and OPN-c, five peptides were selected from candidates predicted as highly observable in Peptide Atlas [16]. The optimal electrospray source settings, collision energy and declustering potential were determined empirically (Table 1 & S1 Fig). Analysis of 200 ng of digested OPN demonstrated that four of the selected peptides produced high signals of at least 1 x 106 counts whereas one peptide, DSYETSQLDDQSAETHSHK, had a signal 1000 times lower and was not used further. Using the optimal conditions, the mass detection limit of the LC-MRM assay using synthetic peptides was 1.3, 1.5, 3.1 and 4.2 ng/ml for peptides QNLLAPQNAVSSEETNDFK, ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK, AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR, and YPDAVATWLNPDPSQK respectively. This sensitivity is similar to the sensitivity of 2.5 ng/ml reported by Macur et al. [19]. Recombinant OPN protein was then spiked into normal serum in order to determine the sensitivity of the overall assay, including plasma processing, digestion and peptide isolation. A limit of detection limit (LOD) of 39 ±15 ng/mL and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 97 ± 33 ng/mL was achieved for the AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR. Background values plus 3 times the standard deviation or five time the standard deviation were used to calculate the LOD and LOQ, respectively. For the QNLLAPQNAVSSEETNDFK peptide, the LOD was 128 ±45 ng/mL with a LOQ of 299 ± 92 ng/mL. The YPDAVATWLNPDPSQK peptide LOD was 209 ±67 ng/mL with a LOQ of 529 ± 131 ng/mL. The least sensitive peptide was ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK with a LOD of 636 ±261 ng/mL with a LOQ of 1688 ± 585 ng/mL. Transitions for the corresponding stable-isotope labelled peptides were then added to create the final assay.

Table 1. MRM assay parameters.

188 ng of OPN tryptic digest was injected and the collision energy (CE) and declustering potential (DP) were optimised. Each peptide was monitored using four transitions which are ranked in decreasing peak height. Low signal prevented determination of optimal settings for the peptide (DSY…SHK).

Sequence ID Q1 m/z Q3 m/z Ion Scaled Intensity CE DP
AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR 927.95 835.89 y15 1.0 32.5 80
927.95 862.37 y7 0.41 38.5 74
AIP 927.95 933.41 y8 0.12 38.5 86
927.95 563.26 y4 0.07 47.5 86
YPDAVATWLNPDPSQK 901.44 459.26 y4 1.0 43.2 89
YPD 901.44 671.34 y6 0.29 40.2 89
901.44 546.26 b5 0.18 37.2 89
901.44 617.29 b6 0.07 34.2 89
ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK 706.31 966.43 y17 0.80 19.9 65
AND 706.31 806.39 y7 1.0 22.9 80
706.31 844.39 y15 0.70 22.9 95
706.31 679.33 y12 0.05 22.9 74
QNLLAPQNAVSSEETNDFK 1053.011 356.1928 b3 0.90 53.6 92
QNL 1053.011 243.1088 b2 1.0 56.6 89
1053.011 540.314 b5 0.53 41.6 83
1053.011 1056.448 y9 0.14 47.6 89
DSYETSQLDDQSAETHSHK 1089.47 609.31 y5 NA NA NA
DSY 1089.47 371.2 y3 NA NA NA
1089.47 596.22 b5 NA NA NA
1089.47 896.42 y8 NA NA NA

Representative data from the analysis of OPN peptides in buffer at a concentration of 200 ng/mL is presented in Fig 1. As expected, this full length OPN-a isoform has all four peptides present. As isoform OPN-b lacks amino acids 59–72 (exon 5 deletion), no signal for peptide QNLLAPQNAVSSEETNDFK would be observed for OPN-b. In a similar fashion, OPN-c lacks amino acids 31–57 (exon 4 deletion) and no signal for peptide YPDAVATWLNPDPSQK would be observed for OPN-c. When summing the transitions, all four peptides were readily detected with a S/N ranging from 39 to 1500. The peptide AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR has two internal proline residues and, as expected, fragmentation to the corresponding y15 and y7 provided the highest S/N of all the transitions studied and was most suitable for low level OPN detection in plasma.

Fig 1. Analysis of OPN standard by LC-MRM-MS.

Fig 1

The assay consists of four peptides with four fragments measured for each peptide for a total of 14 MRMs. In this example, a standard solution at 200 ng/ml in buffer was analysed. The use of multiple fragments provides high specificity.

Assay verification in plasma

The MRM assay was then used to measure plasma sample processed by protein precipitation using the Protrap XG device recently developed by Crowell et al. [17]. High-abundance plasma proteins (HAPP) can often be a significant source of ion suppression and chemical noise in proteomic assays performed in plasma and serum. Therefore, we initially explored the utility of HAPP removal using the Agilent Multiple Affinity Removal Spin Cartridge System (MARS, HAS,IgG) to improve assay performance. Plasma from healthy controls was spiked with OPN at 1 000 ng/mL, which is approximately mid-point of the range (1–2,600 ng/mL) expected in metastatic breast cancer patients [18]. However, OPN losses were significant and precluded the use of this HAPP depletion approach for achieving low ng/mL sensitivity required for clinical sample analysis. OPN binding to reagents commonly used for depletion has been previously suggested [15]. Therefore, in order to minimise sample losses, a direct approach using the ProTrap XG device that used protein precipitation to remove salts, lipids and other interfering plasma components. This simplified approach allowed for the analysis of OPN without depletion or affinity steps and provided high signal to noise for the quantifier peptide (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Quantification of OPN spike in normal plasma.

Fig 2

OPN was spiked into control plasma at 400 ng/ml and processed using the optimised precipitation protocol. Quantification of the spiked protein (red traces) was performed using isotope dilution with a heavy labelled peptide (blue traces) for the four target peptides. The sum of four MRM transitions is shown.

This device uses filtration and an optional solid-phase extraction step (SPE) for processing of proteomic samples. Initial analysis using OPN protein in buffer processed using the manufacturer’s protocol and comparison to solution digestion, revealed some loss of peptide signal. The most likely source of sample loss was adsorption to the filter material; therefore, after the trypsin digestion step, we added an additional 200 μL wash using 80% methanol/0.1% formic acid. When analysing recombinant OPN spiked into normal plasma, the additional elution step returned the recovery to 100% for all but one peptide, ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK, which was the most hydrophilic of the four peptides (Fig 3). This additional elution step was used for all subsequent analysis.

Fig 3. Workflow and optimization of peptide recovery using addition extraction step.

Fig 3

Diagrammatic depiction of OPN extraction procedure using single-tube extraction, digestion process (top panel). Recovery was initially low (panel A) when the manufacturer’s protocol was used but increased significantly when an additional extraction step was introduced (panel B).

Measurement of OPN in plasma samples

As a proof on concept for the method developed, plasma from six triple negative breast cancer patients was used to demonstrate the applicability of the verified assay for endogenous OPN quantification. This sub-type was chosen based on the propensity to over-express OPN [18, 19]. All plasma samples were collected from patients with recurrent metastatic disease and have previously undergone multiple lines of systemic chemotherapy. Sample were labelled with anonymized identifiers (02, 03, 05, 06, 09 and 23) and the blood collection date. Patients 02 and 23 had plasma sampled at various time points. Patient 02, 09 and 23 had three, two and one metastatic sites, respectively when blood sample was first collected. Imaging studies for Patients 03, 05, 06 were not available to determine the number of metastatic sites. The OPN levels detectable from plasma ranged from 17 ± 1 ng/mL to 53 ± 4 ng/mL, with the lowest level found in the pooled normal controls and up to a 3-fold increase in the triple negative breast cancer samples (Fig 4). These values are between the assay LOD and LOQ, therefore, carry a large uncertainty and point to the need for further improvement in assay sensitivity.

Fig 4. Quantification of OPN in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients.

Fig 4

Plasma OPN measurements based on the most sensitive peptide AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR from plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients. A) Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) of a processed plasma sample (10 μL) following the established workflow. Plasma OPN concentration (red trace) was calculated using the ratio of the endogenous peak area over the heavy AQUA chain (blue trace). B) Bar plot representation of the OPN concentrations calculated from the plasma samples (mean ± SD). The control sample is from pooled normal human plasma.

Plasma OPN levels in breast cancer have been shown to vary quite extensively. In an ELISA based quantification, Bramwell et al reported OPN levels in metastatic breast cancer ranging from 1 ng/mL to 2648 ng/mL [18]. In another study, Plumer et al used in-house developed antibodies to measure concentrations of plasma OPN and found elevated levels in their metastatic breast cancer cohort (4.76 ng/mL) compared to healthy controls (1.2 ng/mL). On the other hand, OPN measurements by LC-MS/MS coupled to immunoaffinity by Faria et al ranged from 85–637 ng/mL in their breast cancer patient samples. Such variations are likely a result of the different assay formats, antibodies and peptides used to measure OPN concentration. It could be speculated that the low levels of OPN (similar to the pooled normal controls) in some of the cancer patients could be a result of systemic chemotherapy treatment. Slightly lower levels of mean plasma OPN were observed in metastatic breast cancer patients receiving systemic chemotherapy [18]. Serum OPN levels have also been found to decrease after chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer [20].

The correlation between plasma OPN levels and disease activity was examined in Patient 02 that had serial sampling between October, 2010 and April, 2011 (Fig 5). Where possible, plasma OPN was compared to tumor size assessed from CT imaging; however, since CT imaging is only performed every 2–4 months and blood draws are performed more frequently, this comparison is not possible at all time points. Plasma OPN levels increased concomitantly with disease progression as observed by CT imaging; however, plasma OPN levels were lower in subsequent sampling despite the lack of change in disease activity based on CT imaging. The specific disease progression observed for patient 02 was progression from primary to metastatic disease with new lesions being identified in the bone, which may have been facilitated by the increased OPN levels {Zuo, 2021 #30}. However, due to disease progression, the patient was also administered systemic chemotherapy, which has been shown to decrease OPN levels.

Fig 5. Serial OPN measurements and tumor size.

Fig 5

Serial tumor size measurement by CT reveals rapid tumor growth accompanied by spike in plasma OPN concentration in Patient 02 suggesting change in OPN concentrations may be used to monitor disease progression.

OPN has many diverse biological roles associated with aggressive cell behaviour, tumor progression and metastasis (Bramwell et al, 2006). High levels of OPN are associated with an increased tumor burden and decreased survival (Wang et al, 2020). The differential expression of OPN in breast cancer is still poorly understood and confounding variables of the host response to systemic chemotherapy may play a role in levels of plasma OPN and, therefore, its clinical utility is monitoring disease progression.

Conclusion

The method developed is relatively straightforward; a batch of 8–16 plasma samples can be prepared and analysed in 24 hours, with approximately 3 hours of hands-on time. The method requires the use of stable-isotope labelled peptides, which are readily available and inexpensive, but does not require the use of antibodies, which can be difficult to produce reproducibly. The sensitivity of the method, with a detection limit of 39 ng/mL OPN in plasma, can detect OPN levels in metastatic breast cancer patients with high tumor burden but is insufficient for detection of OPN in early-stage breast cancer patients. The sensitivity is likely sufficient for the analysis of tumor biopsy material since OPN levels are often highly elevated at the tumor site. However, further increases in sensitivity are needed enable measurement of OPN at single ng/ml levels required to enable OPN isoform analysis using a liquid biopsy. This is advantageous as the is less invasive and can be performed a multiple time points. In addition, further increases in assay sensitivity would enable full coverage of the various isoforms of OPN in plasma in order to better understand the role of OPN isoforms in cancer progression.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Collision energy optimization curves.

Optimization of collision energy for five target OPN tryptic peptides. A 200 ng of tryptic digest of OPN protein was injected for parameter optimization.

(TIF)

Data Availability

The mass spectrometry data is available through PeptideAtlas accession number PASS04822.

Funding Statement

DP and AD acknowledge grant support from the Atlantic Chapter of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. DP acknowledges support from the National Research Council Industrial Research Assistance Program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Ellington TD, Miler JW, Henley J, Wilson RJ, Wu M, Richardson LC, Trends in Breast Cancer Incidence by Race, Ethnicity, and Age Among Women Aged ≥ 20 Years—United States, 1999–2018, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2022, 71(2): 43–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human Breast Cancer: Correlation of Relapse and Survival with Amplification of the HER-2neu, Oncogene. Science 1987;235(4785):177–182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mendes D, Alves C, Afonso N, Cardoso F, Passos-Coelho JL, Costa L, et al. The benefit of HER2-targeted therapies on overall survival of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer–a systematic review. Breast Cancer Research 2015;17(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s13058-015-0648-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chang P-L, Prince CW. 1α,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 Enhances 12-O-Tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate-induced Tumorigenic Transformation and Osteopontin Expression in Mouse JB6 Epidermal Cells1. Cancer Research 1993;53(10):2217–2220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhao H, Chen Q, Alam A, Cui J, Suen KC, Soo AP, et al. The role of osteopontin in the progression of solid organ tumour. Cell Death & Disease 2018;9(3):356. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-0391-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Boumans MJ, Houbiers JG, Verschueren P, Ishikura H, Westhovens R, Brouwer E, et al. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody ASK8007 blocking osteopontin in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, placebo controlled, proof-of-concept study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71(2):180–5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Farrokhi V, Chabot JR, Neubert H, Yang Z. Assessing the Feasibility of Neutralizing Osteopontin with Various Therapeutic Antibody Modalities. Scientific Reports 2018;8(1):7781. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26187-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Keykhosravani M, Doherty-Kirby A, Zhang C, Brewer D, Goldberg HA, Hunter GK, et al. Comprehensive Identification of Post-translational Modifications of Rat Bone Osteopontin by Mass Spectrometry. Biochemistry 2005;44(18):6990–7003. doi: 10.1021/bi050109p [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Anborgh PH, Mutrie JC, Tuck AB, Chambers AF. Pre- and post-translational regulation of osteopontin in cancer. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling 2011;5(2):111–122. doi: 10.1007/s12079-011-0130-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Singhal H, Bautista DS, Tonkin KS, O’Malley FP, Tuck AB, Chambers AF, et al. Elevated plasma osteopontin in metastatic breast cancer associated with increased tumor burden and decreased survival. Clinical Cancer Research 1997;3(4):605–611. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kim YW, Park YK, Lee J, Ko SW, Yang MH. Expression of osteopontin and osteonectin in breast cancer. J Korean Med Sci 1998;13(6):652–657. doi: 10.3346/jkms.1998.13.6.652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Xu Y-Y, Zhang Y-Y, Lu W-F, Mi Y-J, Chen Y-Q. Prognostic value of osteopontin expression in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol 2015;3(2):357–362. doi: 10.3892/mco.2014.480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Plumer A, Duan H, Subramaniam S, Lucas FL, Miesfeldt S, Ng A-K, et al. Development of fragment-specific osteopontin antibodies and ELISA for quantification in human metastatic breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2008;8(1):38. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Faria M, Halquist MS, Yuan M, Mylott W, Jenkins RG, Karnes HT. Comparison of a stable isotope labeled (SIL) peptide and an extended SIL peptide as internal standards to track digestion variability of an unstable signature peptide during quantification of a cancer biomarker, human osteopontin, from plasma using capillary microflow LC–MS/MS. Journal of Chromatography B 2015;1001:156–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2015.05.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhou Y, Romson J, Emmer Å. An antibody-free sample pretreatment method for osteopontin combined with MALDI-TOF MS/MS analysis. PLOS ONE 2019;14(3):e0213405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Deutsch EW. The PeptideAtlas Project. In: Hubbard SJ, Jones AR, editors. Proteome Bioinformatics. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2010. p. 285–296. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Crowell AMJ, MacLellan DL, Doucette AA. A two-stage spin cartridge for integrated protein precipitation, digestion and SDS removal in a comparative bottom-up proteomics workflow. Journal of Proteomics 2015;118:140–150. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2014.09.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bramwell VHC, Doig GS, Tuck AB, Wilson SM, Tonkin KS, Tomiak A, et al. Serial Plasma Osteopontin Levels Have Prognostic Value in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Clinical Cancer Research 2006;12(11):3337–3343. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Macur K, Hagen L, Ciesielski TM, Konieczna L, Skokowski J, Jenssen BM, et al. A targeted mass spectrometry immunoassay to quantify osteopontin in fresh-frozen breast tumors and adjacent normal breast tissues. Journal of Proteomics 2019;208:103469. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2019.103469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Xu C, Yuan Q, Wang W, Chi C, Zhang Q, Li L, et al. Prognostic significance of serum osteopontin levels in small cell lung cancer. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2020;20(1):235. doi: 10.1186/s12890-020-01242-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

A M Abd El-Aty

15 Feb 2023

PONE-D-23-02025A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for Osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pinto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: As appended below, the reviewers have raised major concerns/critiques and suggested further justification/work to consolidate the findings. Do go through the comments and amend the MS accordingly 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 01 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

A. M. Abd El-Aty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the current manuscript, the authors have conducted a pilot study using a targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay and quantified Osteopontin in plasma of six metastatic triple negative breast cancer patients.

The article is well structured into sections and subsections. The article is eloquent, and English is professional. It is within the scope of the journal.

However, there are some comments that need to be addressed to improve the article. The detailed comments are below:

1) Abstract, line 35: OPN is a multifunctional protein and is important for normal physiological processes. The dysregulation in its levels (overexpression) promotes tumor progression. The sentence needs to be rephrased to improve clarity.

2) Introduction: Is there a specific proteoform of OPN that is associated with the disease (cancer in this case)? For instance, elevated levels of glycosylated or phosphorylated forms? Not all proteoforms of OPN may be linked to cancer.

3) Introduction, line 89: Authors have described studies that have attempted OPN quantification. It would be relevant to describe Macur et al (2019) (Reference 19), where the analytical workflow included the enrichment of peptides and LC-MRM-MS analysis with stable isotope standards (SIS) standards that enabled the OPN quantification upto 2.5 ng/mL. Authors can highlight the merits of the workflow used in the current study, however the detection limit of this assay is 39 ng/mL.

4) Lines 217-224: For the pilot study, authors have used plasma from six triple negative breast cancer patients. However in line 221 and 222 authors mention patient 23. The sentence needs clarity. For instance, it can be mentioned as six patients namely or labelled 02, 03…and 23.

5) Lines 241-243: It is mentioned that plasma OPN levels increased with disease progression, then why plasma levels were lower in subsequent sampling?

6) Figure 1 Legend, line 264: The figure panels can be labeled and legend can be improved to aid the readers. Denote the short name used for the peptides either in Table1 or in the legend.

7) Figures: All figures need improvement. The image resolutions are very low, and the axis labels are not legible in some cases. Proper scaling is required. Figure 2 – The axis label seems half cropped. Figure 4 – nothing is legible.

Reviewer #2: Osteopontin was proposed as a potential biomarker in different diseases including breast cancer. Yet, to verify its biomarker potential in certain disease osteopontin needs to be verified in larger groups of clinical samples representative for a certain disease or its state. This in turn requires an efficient, high throughput and reliable methodology for sample processing and measurement. This goal was achieved by the authors of the manuscript, who developed a LC-MRM-MS-based assay with SIL standards for quantification of OPN in plasma with an efficient sample preparaction method that included protein precipitation, digestion and clean-up on a ProTrap XG filter cartridge. They verfied the assay on a set of breast cancer patients' plasma. In my opinion the manuscript is good, although needs some minor corrections/comments to be published in PLOS ONE:

(1) Please provide the ProteomeXchange number for your data-now it is missing.

(2) As I understood, the assay is intended to detect all OPN isoforms present in the sample, without distinguishing between them. Is any of the peptides unique for a particular isoform? Moreover, the concentration calculation is based on the signal detected for all the investigated peptides. Then, please comment on the impact of presence/absence of certain isoform on the final quantification results. The authors also mention post-translational modifications of OPN. PTMs were also detected on OPN peptides that they choose for quantification (please see eg. UniProtKB), which will make such modified peptide not detected by the developed LC-MRM-MS assay. Please comment on impact of presence/absence of the PTMs on the final quantification results and possible method limitations.

(3) Are LODs, LOQs and concentrations in patients's samples presented as mean +/- SD? Please specify and comment on the obtained results in the manuscript (line 180-187).

(4) Were calibration curves prepared for the investigated peptides or was it a single point calibration? Please specify clearly in the manuscript. If available, please add information about linear range of the assay.

(5) What software was used for data acquisition, extraction and processing? What parameters of the software were applied for data processing?

(6)I think it should be 'transtuzumab' instead of 'tranztuzumab' (line 55-56).

(7) It would be informative to give information about patients, where the cancer type and stage would be assesed by one of the clinically applied scales. Please include this information if available.

Reviewer #3: In their manuscript “A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for Osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients”, Andrew Leslie et al. developed 4 SID-SRM LC-MS assays for the quantification of the most relevant Osteopontin proteoforms. They also demonstrate the ability to quantify OPN in plasma samples using a slightly optimized sample preparation workflow that does not include any OPN enrichment step, which would be required to achieve sufficient sensitivities. As such, the targeted MS assays are sound, but lack sensitivity in real plasma samples. Nonetheless, the assays are a good starting point to use targeted MS for OPN quantification and are certainly interesting for researchers working in the field. I summarized my comments below that need to be addressed before publication.

Comments:

Line 212: The authors claim to recover 100% of the 4 selected peptides with their optimized sample preparation workflow. It is not clear from Figure two how this was determined. This is not too easy. Ideally, a reference protein would be spiked before the sample preparation in know amounts and is then determined by using heavy reference peptides spiked directly before LC-MS analysis. The ratio will then reflex the losses taking place during sample preparation. The authors should explain in detail how the 100% were determined or tune down this sentence saying that recovery of hydrophobic peptides was considerably improved by the additional elution step.

Line 225: The OPN concentrations found here ranged between 17 and 53 ng/ml. However, above, the authors describe the LOD/LOQs of the single peptide assays developed to be much higher. Only LOD of one peptide was at 39 ng/ml, LOQ at 97 ng/ml. Does this mean that the OPN concentrations determined are all below LOQ? How useful are the assays actually with LOQs being much above the actual OPN concentrations found in most plasma samples? This and further improvement possibilities to boost sensitivity should be discussed!

The entire data analysis part including a statical analysis is missing in the manuscript and should be added.

Figure 2: It would be helpful to add the time span between the spins into the schematic overview to better grasp the workflow. In particular, when adding trypsin, some incubation time (overnight) is required before spinning down the peptides.

Figure 5: Why was there no Tumor size measurement at 2011-01-10?

The raw MS data needs to be public available. Please upload to a public repository, like PANORAMA.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ankita Punetha

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0281491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281491.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Apr 2023

February 22, 2023

A.M. Abd el-Aty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Re: Reviewer comments for “A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for Osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients”

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for their careful consideration of our manuscript. Please find below our responses to their comments and concerns.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: In the current manuscript, the authors have conducted a pilot study using a targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay and quantified Osteopontin in plasma of six metastatic triple negative breast cancer patients.

The article is well structured into sections and subsections. The article is eloquent, and English is professional. It is within the scope of the journal.

However, there are some comments that need to be addressed to improve the article. The detailed comments are below:

1) Abstract, line 35: OPN is a multifunctional protein and is important for normal physiological processes. The dysregulation in its levels (overexpression) promotes tumor progression. The sentence needs to be rephrased to improve clarity.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and have revised the sentence as follows:

Original: These properties implicate OPN as a promotor of tumor progression.

Revised: OPN is involved in several normal physiological processes; however, OPN dysregulation leads to overexpression by tumor cells leading to immune evasion and increased metastasis.

2) Introduction: Is there a specific proteoform of OPN that is associated with the disease (cancer in this case)? For instance, elevated levels of glycosylated or phosphorylated forms? Not all proteoforms of OPN may be linked to cancer.

We agree that this is an important point. OPN has three splice variants (OPN-a,OPN-b & OPN-c) that are the focus of this manuscript. Other proteoforms result from the numerous phosphorylation (n=30) and glycosylation (n=5) sites. However, their role in cancer is unclear but we hope that improved assays will aid these efforts. We have modified lines 104-5 as follows and include reference to a comprehensive review of OPN in cancer.

Original: We evaluate several additional SIL peptides that correspond to the known OPN isoforms.

Revised: We evaluated several additional SIL peptides that correspond to OPN splice variants OPN-a, OPN-b and OPN-c since their roles in cancer are the most characterised amongst the several known OPN isoforms.

3) Introduction, line 89: Authors have described studies that have attempted OPN quantification. It would be relevant to describe Macur et al (2019) (Reference 19), where the analytical workflow included the enrichment of peptides and LC-MRM-MS analysis with stable isotope standards (SIS) standards that enabled the OPN quantification upto 2.5 ng/mL. Authors can highlight the merits of the workflow used in the current study, however the detection limit of this assay is 39 ng/mL.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and have added more detail to the discussion in order to highlight the merits of the current workflow as suggested. We note that the methods for evaluating the detection limit differ; we used a protein spiked into plasma and Macur et al used a purified peptide. We have included similar data in order to allow for a direct comparison.

“Using the optimal conditions, the mass detection limit of the LC-MRM assay using synthetic peptides was 1.3, 1.5, 3.1 and 4.2 ng/ml for peptides QNLLAPQNAVSSEETNDFK, ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK, AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR, and YPDAVATWLNPDPSQK respectively. This sensitivity is similar to the sensitivity of 2.5 ng/ml reported by Macur et al.19”

4) Lines 217-224: For the pilot study, authors have used plasma from six triple negative breast cancer patients. However in line 221 and 222 authors mention patient 23. The sentence needs clarity. For instance, it can be mentioned as six patients namely or labelled 02, 03…and 23.

We have added more detail as suggested by the reviewer.

Original

All plasma samples were collected from patients with recurrent metastatic disease and have previously undergone multiple lines of systemic chemotherapy.

Revised

All plasma samples were collected from patients with recurrent metastatic disease and have previously undergone multiple lines of systemic chemotherapy. Sample were labelled with anonymized identifiers (02, 03, 05, 06, 09 and 23) and the blood collection date.

5) Lines 241-243: It is mentioned that plasma OPN levels increased with disease progression, then why plasma levels were lower in subsequent sampling?

The reviewer is correct that OPN levels have been shown to increase between patients as the cancer stage increases from I to IV; however, very little data is available for OPN within the same patient at multiple time points. The studies that have been published show a complex behaviour; OPN increases with tumor size but also increases immediately after tumors are surgically removed but decreases due to chemotherapy. The text has been modified as follows to reflect this complexity.

Original

The correlation between plasma OPN levels and disease activity was examined in Patient 02 that had serial sampling between October, 2010 and April, 2011. Plasma OPN levels increased concomitantly with disease progression as observed by CT imaging; however, plasma OPN levels were lower in subsequent sampling despite the lack of change in disease activity based on CT imaging. OPN has many diverse biological roles associated with aggressive cell behaviour, tumor progression and metastasis (Bramwell et al, 2014). High levels of OPN are associated with an increased tumor burden and decreased survival (Wang et al, 2006). The differential expression of OPN in breast cancer is still poorly understood and confounding variables of the host response to systemic chemotherapy may play a role in levels of plasma OPN.

Revised

The correlation between plasma OPN levels and disease activity was examined in Patient 02 that had serial sampling between October, 2010 and April, 2011. Where possible, plasma OPN was compared to tumor size assessed from CT imaging; however, since CT imaging is only performed every 2-4 months and blood draws are performed more frequently, this comparison is not possible at all time points. Plasma OPN levels increased concomitantly with disease progression as observed by CT imaging; however, plasma OPN levels were lower in subsequent sampling despite the lack of change in disease activity based on CT imaging. The specific disease progression observed for patient 02 was progression from primary to metastatic disease with new lesions being identified in the bone, which may have been facilitated by the increased OPN levels {Zuo, 2021 #30}. However, due to disease progression, the patient was also administered systemic chemotherapy, which has been shown to decrease OPN levels.

6) Figure 1 Legend, line 264: The figure panels can be labeled and legend can be improved to aid the readers. Denote the short name used for the peptides either in Table1 or in the legend.

Table 1 has been updated with a new column titled “ID” indicating each peptides short name.

7) Figures: All figures need improvement. The image resolutions are very low, and the axis labels are not legible in some cases. Proper scaling is required. Figure 2 – The axis label seems half cropped. Figure 4 – nothing is legible.

We apologize for the quality of the figures. They were all uploaded at high quality but we have no control over how they are processed by the journal submission system. However, we have included the images submitted below for your convenience.

Figure 1 – Analysis of OPN standard by LC-MRM-MS.

The assay consists of four peptides with four fragments measured for each peptide for a total of 14 MRMs. In this example, a standard solution at 200 ng/ml in buffer was analysed. The use of multiple fragments provides high specificity.

Figure 2 – Workflow and optimization of peptide recovery using addition extraction step

Diagrammatic depiction of OPN extraction procedure using single-tube extraction, digestion process (top panel). Recovery was initially low (panel A) when the manufacturer’s protocol was used but increased significantly when an additional extraction step was introduced (panel B).

Figure 3 – Quantification of OPN spike in normal plasma

OPN was spiked into control plasma at 400 ng/ml and processed using the optimised precipitation protocol. Quantification of the spiked protein (red traces) was performed using isotope dilution with a heavy labelled peptide (blue traces) for the four target peptides. The sum of four MRM transitions is shown.

Figure 4 – Quantification of OPN in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients

Plasma OPN measurements based on the most sensitive peptide AIPVAQDLNAPSDWDSR from plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients. A) Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) of a processed plasma sample (10 µL) following the established workflow. Plasma OPN concentration (red trace) was calculated using the ratio of the endogenous peak area over the heavy AQUA chain (blue trace). B) Bar plot representation of the OPN concentrations calculated from the plasma samples (mean + SD). The control sample is from pooled normal human plasma.

Figure 5: Serial OPN measurements and tumor size

Serial tumor size measurement by CT reveals rapid tumor growth accompanied by spike in plasma OPN concentration in Patient 02 suggesting change in OPN concentrations may be used to monitor disease progression.

Supplemental Figure S1 – Collision Energy Optimization curves. Optimization of collision energy for five target OPN tryptic peptides. A 200 ng of tryptic digest of OPN protein was injected for parameter optimization.

Reviewer #2: Osteopontin was proposed as a potential biomarker in different diseases including breast cancer. Yet, to verify its biomarker potential in certain disease osteopontin needs to be verified in larger groups of clinical samples representative for a certain disease or its state. This in turn requires an efficient, high throughput and reliable methodology for sample processing and measurement. This goal was achieved by the authors of the manuscript, who developed a LC-MRM-MS-based assay with SIL standards for quantification of OPN in plasma with an efficient sample preparation method that included protein precipitation, digestion and clean-up on a ProTrap XG filter cartridge. They verified the assay on a set of breast cancer patients' plasma. In my opinion the manuscript is good, although needs some minor corrections/comments to be published in PLOS ONE:

(1) Please provide the ProteomeXchange number for your data-now it is missing.

All raw data has been uploaded as submission PASS04822 to PeptideAtlas.

(2) As I understood, the assay is intended to detect all OPN isoforms present in the sample, without distinguishing between them. Is any of the peptides unique for a particular isoform? Moreover, the concentration calculation is based on the signal detected for all the investigated peptides. Then, please comment on the impact of presence/absence of certain isoform on the final quantification results. The authors also mention post-translational modifications of OPN. PTMs were also detected on OPN peptides that they choose for quantification (please see eg. UniProtKB), which will make such modified peptide not detected by the developed LC-MRM-MS assay. Please comment on impact of presence/absence of the PTMs on the final quantification results and possible method limitations.

The reviewer is correct; the assay is intended to distinguish between isoform since the peptides chosen span deletions present in OPN-b (deletion of exon 5) and OPN-c (deletion of exon 4). OPN-a is the full length and would have signal for all four peptides. The following text was added to better explain this mapping:

As expected, this full length OPN-a isoform has all four peptides present. As isoform OPN-b lacks amino acids 59-72 (exon 5 deletion), no signal for peptide QNLLAPQNAVSSEETNDFK would be observed for OPN-b. In a similar fashion, OPN-c lacks amino acids 31-57 (exon 4 deletion) and no signal for peptide YPDAVATWLNPDPSQK would be observed for OPN-c.

(3) Are LODs, LOQs and concentrations in patients's samples presented as mean +/- SD? Please specify and comment on the obtained results in the manuscript (line 180-187).

Original:

Background values plus 3 times the standard deviation or five time the standard deviation were used to calculate the LOD and LOQ, respectively.

Revised:

LOD’s for each peptide were determined by first averaging the response of quantifier transitions for 8 replicate blank injections. The blank response was defined as the average of the replicate blanks plus 3x the standard deviation of the blank response areas. Single point calibration between the calculated blank response and ILIS peptides spiked at 2 concentration levels were averaged to determine per peptide LOD values.

(4) Were calibration curves prepared for the investigated peptides or was it a single point calibration? Please specify clearly in the manuscript. If available, please add information about linear range of the assay.

Revised:

Sample peptide concentration values were determined from a single point calibration comparison of the average of duplicate quantifier transitions with ILIS spiked peptides (18 fmol/uL each). Resulting values were converted to ng/mL units using the molecular weight of OSTP (36229.53 g/mol).

(5) What software was used for data acquisition, extraction and processing? What parameters of the software were applied for data processing?

Revised:

All mass spectrometry data was acquired using Analyst version 1.6.2 with peak area integration using Skyline version 22.2.0.255. All data analysis utilized in-house generated scripts written in R (version 4.2.1).

(6)I think it should be 'transtuzumab' instead of 'tranztuzumab' (line 55-56).

The reviewer is correct; “traztuzumab” has been corrected to “trastuzumab”.

(7) It would be informative to give information about patients, where the cancer type and stage would be assesed by one of the clinically applied scales. Please include this information if available.

A Table summarizing available information on the patients has been added to the Supplementary section.

Patient ID Type of BC Histological finding Metastatic sites Lines of therapy

2 TN IDC 3 1

3 TN NA NA NA

5 TN NA NA NA

6 TN NA NA NA

9 TN IDC 2 1

23 TN IDC 1 1

IDC: Invasive ductal carcinoma; TN: Triple negative; NA: not available

Reviewer #3: In their manuscript “A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for Osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients”, Andrew Leslie et al. developed 4 SID-SRM LC-MS assays for the quantification of the most relevant Osteopontin proteoforms. They also demonstrate the ability to quantify OPN in plasma samples using a slightly optimized sample preparation workflow that does not include any OPN enrichment step, which would be required to achieve sufficient sensitivities. As such, the targeted MS assays are sound, but lack sensitivity in real plasma samples. Nonetheless, the assays are a good starting point to use targeted MS for OPN quantification and are certainly interesting for researchers working in the field. I summarized my comments below that need to be addressed before publication.

Comments:

Line 212: The authors claim to recover 100% of the 4 selected peptides with their optimized sample preparation workflow. It is not clear from Figure two how this was determined. This is not too easy. Ideally, a reference protein would be spiked before the sample preparation in know amounts and is then determined by using heavy reference peptides spiked directly before LC-MS analysis. The ratio will then reflex the losses taking place during sample preparation. The authors should explain in detail how the 100% were determined or tune down this sentence saying that recovery of hydrophobic peptides was considerably improved by the additional elution step.

Original:

When analysing recombinant OPN spiked into normal plasma, the additional elution step returned the recovery to 100% for all but one peptide, ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK, which was the most hydrophilic of the four peptides (Figure 2).

Revised:

When analysing recombinant OPN spiked into normal plasma, the additional elution step significantly improved peak areas for all but one peptide, ANDESNEHSDVIDSQELSK, which was the most hydrophilic of the four peptides (Figure 2).

Line 225: The OPN concentrations found here ranged between 17 and 53 ng/ml. However, above, the authors describe the LOD/LOQs of the single peptide assays developed to be much higher. Only LOD of one peptide was at 39 ng/ml, LOQ at 97 ng/ml. Does this mean that the OPN concentrations determined are all below LOQ? How useful are the assays actually with LOQs being much above the actual OPN concentrations found in most plasma samples? This and further improvement possibilities to boost sensitivity should be discussed!

The assay is more simple and more sensitive that a previous publication in POLS One using immune-MS for OPN analysis in tissue. However, in spite of this, the reviewer is correct that further improvement in the LOQ are needed in order to allow for the assay to be useful clinically for the analysis of plasma OPN isoforms in cancer patients.

The following has been added to the results section (line 237):

These values are between the assay LOD and LOQ, therefore, carry a large uncertainty and point to the need for further improvement in assay sensitivity.

Also, the conclusions have been revised:

Original:

The sensitivity of the method, with a detection limit of 39 ng/mL OPN in plasma, is sufficient for detection of OPN in patients with elevated OPN levels, such as those with high tumor burden. However, further increases in sensitivity are needed for use of this assay to measure low ng/mL levels of OPN and to provide full coverage of the various isoforms of OPN.

Revised:

The sensitivity of the method, with a detection limit of 39 ng/mL OPN in plasma, can detect OPN levels in metastatic breast cancer patients with high tumor burden but is insufficient for detection of OPN in early-stage breast cancer patients. The sensitivity is likely sufficient for the analysis of tumor biopsy material since OPN levels are often highly elevated at the tumor site. However, further increases in sensitivity are needed to enable measurement of OPN isoforms at single ng/ml levels for it to be useful in a liquid biopsy. This is advantageous as liquid biopsies are less invasive and can be performed at multiple time points to enable studies on correlation between OPN levels and disease progression or treatment response. In addition, further increases in assay sensitivity would enable full coverage of the various isoforms of OPN in plasma in order to better understand the role of OPN isoforms in cancer progression.

The entire data analysis part including a statical analysis is missing in the manuscript and should be added.

Please see Reviewer 2 Comments 3,4 above for inline addition of statistical analysis.

Figure 2: It would be helpful to add the time span between the spins into the schematic overview to better grasp the workflow. In particular, when adding trypsin, some incubation time (overnight) is required before spinning down the peptides.

Revised:

Figure 2:

Add “(Overnight at 37 ºC)” below ‘5 µg trypsin’ vial label.

Add “(5 min)” below each Spin arrow

Figure 5: Why was there no Tumor size measurement at 2011-01-10?

Tumor size measurement is typically performed every 2-4 months as more frequent intervals rarely show sufficient changes to inform or effect clinical decision-making. As a CT scan had been performed on 2010-12-20, a scan was not indicated on 2011-01-10. We have added the following text to provide this context:

Where possible, plasma OPN was compared to tumor size assessed from CT imaging; however, since CT imaging is only performed every 2-4 months and blood draws are performed more frequently, this comparison is not possible at all time points.

The raw MS data needs to be public available. Please upload to a public repository, like PANORAMA.

Please see Reviewer #2, Comment #1

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ankita Punetha

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

________________________________________

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

________________________________________

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal registration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the p

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_PONE-D-23-02025.docx

Decision Letter 1

A M Abd El-Aty

18 May 2023

PONE-D-23-02025R1A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for Osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pinto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Would you please go through the comments raised by reviewer # 2 and amend the MS accordingly. Afterward, proofread the text for grammar and syntax errors, if any.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

A. M. Abd El-Aty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have diligently addressed all the raised concerns. The manuscript after revision has significantly improved.

In the Supplemental Figure S1 – Collision Energy Optimization curves, the axes labels are not legible. It is advised to increase the font size for better readability.

Reviewer #2: The authors developed an OPN quantifcation methodology that does not require use of antibodies and with a simple sample preparation procedure with LOD at 39 ng/mL, which is a good result. However, the assay has got insufficient sensitivity to quantify OPN in the samples from some breast cancer patients, as the detected concentrations were between 17 and 53 ng/mL. Therefore, I think it would be fair to the potential reader to state also in the abstract: (1) OPN levels detected in the pilot study plasma samles, and, (2) that the assay is useful rather for plasma from patients of high grade tumors, where the expected OPN concentration is higher.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript has been considerably improved by addressing all comments satisfactorily. It will be very useful to readers and is now ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Alexander Schmidt

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0281491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281491.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Jun 2023

Reviewer #1: The authors have diligently addressed all the raised concerns. The manuscript after revision has significantly improved.

In the Supplemental Figure S1 – Collision Energy Optimization curves, the axes labels are not legible. It is advised to increase the font size for better readability.

An improved version of this figure with larger fonts is included

Reviewer #2: The authors developed an OPN quantifcation methodology that does not require use of antibodies and with a simple sample preparation procedure with LOD at 39 ng/mL, which is a good result. However, the assay has got insufficient sensitivity to quantify OPN in the samples from some breast cancer patients, as the detected concentrations were between 17 and 53 ng/mL. Therefore, I think it would be fair to the potential reader to state also in the abstract: (1) OPN levels detected in the pilot study plasma samles, and, (2) that the assay is useful rather for plasma from patients of high grade tumors, where the expected OPN concentration is higher.

The following was added to the abstract:

The assay was applied to the analysis of plasma OPN in metastatic breast cancer patients, where levels from 17 to 53 ng/mL were detected. The sensitivity of the method is higher than previously published methods and sufficient for OPN detection in large, high grade tumors but still requires improvement in sensitivity to be widely applicable.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

A M Abd El-Aty

15 Jun 2023

A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for Osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients

PONE-D-23-02025R2

Dear Dr. Pinto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

A. M. Abd El-Aty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I have not got any more comments to the Authors. All the prevoius comments have already been adressed by the Authors in this revieved verisoin of the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

A M Abd El-Aty

19 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-02025R2

A targeted isotope dilution mass spectrometry assay for Osteopontin quantification in plasma of metastatic breast cancer patients

Dear Dr. Pinto:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. A. M. Abd El-Aty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Collision energy optimization curves.

    Optimization of collision energy for five target OPN tryptic peptides. A 200 ng of tryptic digest of OPN protein was injected for parameter optimization.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_PONE-D-23-02025.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The mass spectrometry data is available through PeptideAtlas accession number PASS04822.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES