Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 15;18(2):e0281772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281772

Targeted proteomics using stable isotope labeled protein fragments enables precise and robust determination of total apolipoprotein(a) in human plasma

Andreas Hober 1,2, Mirela Rekanovic 3, Björn Forsström 1,2, Sara Hansson 3, David Kotol 1,2, Andrew J Percy 4, Mathias Uhlén 1,2, Jan Oscarsson 5, Fredrik Edfors 1,2,#, Tasso Miliotis 3,*,#
Editor: Jon M Jacobs6
PMCID: PMC9931122  PMID: 36791076

Abstract

Lipoprotein(a), also known as Lp(a), is an LDL-like particle composed of apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) bound covalently to apolipoprotein B100. Plasma concentrations of Lp(a) are highly heritable and vary widely between individuals. Elevated plasma concentration of Lp(a) is considered as an independent, causal risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Targeted mass spectrometry (LC-SRM/MS) combined with stable isotope-labeled recombinant proteins provides robust and precise quantification of proteins in the blood, making LC-SRM/MS assays appealing for monitoring plasma proteins for clinical implications. This study presents a novel quantitative approach, based on proteotypic peptides, to determine the absolute concentration of apo(a) from two microliters of plasma and qualified according to guideline requirements for targeted proteomics assays. After optimization, assay parameters such as linearity, lower limits of quantification (LLOQ), intra-assay variability (CV: 4.7%) and inter-assay repeatability (CV: 7.8%) were determined and the LC-SRM/MS results were benchmarked against a commercially available immunoassay. In summary, the measurements of an apo(a) single copy specific peptide and a kringle 4 specific peptide allow for the determination of molar concentration and relative size of apo(a) in individuals.

Introduction

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) comprise of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle with apolipoprotein (a) (apo(a)) covalently attached to apolipoprotein B100 by a single disulfide bond. Apo(a) is structurally different from any other apolipoproteins and contains a hydrophilic and carbohydrate-rich structure with no amphipathic helices [1, 2]. Apo(a) is a homolog of plasminogen and both genes code sequences for loop structures stabilized by intrachain disulfide bonds, so-called kringle (K) domains. Within the apo(a) gene two different kringle domains are present, namely K4 and K5. The apo(a) gene has ten different types of plasminogen-like K4 domains, referred to as K4 type 1 through 10. All K4 domains except for K4 type 2 (K42) are present as single copies. In contrast, K42 repeats are present as multiple copies that vary from 3 to >40 copies [37]. Hence, apo(a) is highly polymorphic in size because of the number of K42 repeats, resulting in >40 isoforms with molecular masses ranging between 200 kDa and 900 kDa.

Due to the extensive LPA allele size variability, plasma Lp(a) in heterozygous individuals most often carry two differently sized apo(a) isoforms [8]. An individual may carry a small and a large isoform, in any combination thereof, and approximately 20% of all subjects express only one isoform of the protein [9]. The circulating levels of Lp(a) are primarily determined by the association between K42 repeats and Lp(a) levels, but a variation in Lp(a) levels has been observed for isoforms of the same size [1014].

High Lp(a) levels is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), and heart failure (HF) [10, 11, 1525]. Mendelian randomization studies have shown that low numbers of K42 repeats and high Lp(a) levels are associated with CVD [10]. These associations have catalyzed research and development efforts to introduce therapies to reduce the plasma levels of Lp(a) [2628].

The size heterogeneity of Lp(a) has been the most challenging hurdle to overcome for the development of immunoassays for the accurate measurement of Lp(a) in plasma. Marcovina et al. [29] have reviewed the challenges involved in selecting specific antibodies directed to apo(a) due to the variability in size of apo(a) and to develop an assay calibrator that has structural characteristics that resemble the analyte. Selecting an appropriate calibrator is practically impossible due to the intra- and interindividual high degree of size variation in apo(a). Furthermore, because of this heterogeneity, Marcovina et al. [29] suggested that quantitative Lp(a) levels from assays should be reported in apo(a) particle number as nmol/l and not mg/dl, provided the variability in apo(a) size. Due to the need for precise values represented in standardized and comparable units, several targeted LC-MS/MS approaches have been developed for the quantification of apolipoprotein(a) by targeting selected proteotypic peptides. These have been constructed relying solely on spike-in of peptide standards, which enable the peptide concentration to be determined precisely by isotope dilution. These assays have been rigorously assessed in terms of accuracy and precision and designed to circumvent the issues of the repetitive sequence of apo(a) [3032]. A common obstacle when working with peptide standards is their dependence on proteolysis yields to deliver robust, accurate and precise quantification. This has been highlighted both by Marcovina et al. and Blanchard et al., in the context of accurate quantification. To address these inherent targeted proteomics issues, rigorous evaluation of digestion kinetics or the use of commercial digestion kits have been used, but this puts a new constraint on the assay in terms of confinement to specific digestion protocols [32, 33]. In our previous study [34], a novel type of internal standard called Stable Isotope Standard (SIS) Protein Epitope Signature Tags (SIS PrESTs), which are derived from the Human Protein Atlas project, was described in the context of analysis of clinical samples [35, 36]. These standards are based on recombinant protein fragments that release their labeled peptides upon digestion and can account for very short digestion protocols with preserved quantitative precision [35, 37]. The SIS PrESTs were used to quantify a multiplexed panel of 13 apolipoproteins, including apo(a), in human plasma using Liquid-Chromatography coupled with Selective Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry (LC-SRM/MS). There are significant benefits to using targeted mass spectrometry in conjunction with protein-level rather than peptide-level spike-inof standards and SIS PrESTs are an excellent substitute for full-length protein standards in terms of precision and accuracy [34, 38]. However, the SIS PrEST design for apo(a) that was used in our previous study quantified the amount of K4 repeats rather than the apo(a) concentration in human plasma since the target peptide sequence is found in the K42 domain. In this study, we describe the use of a new SIS PrEST apo(a) standard that circumvents this issue by selecting peptides belonging to the non-repeated region of apo(a). The proteotypic peptide is situated in the protease domain of apo(a) and thereby enables measurement of the molar apo(a) levels in plasma. The use of LC-SRM/MS in combination with an internal standard independent of apo(a) isoforms eliminates the dependence on antigen-antibody reactions, calibrators and standards related to immuno-assays for quantification of apo(a). By also quantifying the peptides belonging to the K4 domains, the measurements can be used to obtain the mean number of K4 domains that are present in the apo(a) molecules in the sample and thereby estimate the average size of apo(a) [39].

LC-SRM/MS assays have emerged as a viable alternative to immunoassays offering high specificity, multiplexity and excellent precision with automated data acquisition [40]. Herein, we describe the development of an LC-SRM/MS method that has been optimized and evaluated with standard procedures for analytical method validations. This includes evaluation of linearity, limit of quantification (LOQ) and repeatability, which is in accordance with a fit-for-purpose approach for targeted mass spectrometry-based assay development [41]. A sample volume of only 2°μl human plasma was sufficient for accurate and precise quantification of apo(a). The protocol involves tryptic digestion and the generated peptides act as surrogate markers for the protein(s) of interest, which are subsequently analyzed by LC-SRM/MS [42, 43]. The targeted mass spectrometric assay was compared to a commercially available solid-phase two-site enzyme immunoassay based on the sandwich technology, in which two monoclonal antibodies, directed against separate antigenic determinants on the apo(a) molecule, were used. In a recent study using a well-characterized healthy sample cohort (The Swedish Science for Life Laboratory SCAPIS Wellness Profiling (S3WP)) of 101 healthy individuals, it was shown that the adult blood levels of many proteins are determined at birth by genetics [44]. Plasma from the S3WP cohort was used to determine the apo(a) levels and how the number of K4 domains influences plasma levels of apo(a).

Materials and methods

SIS PrEST standards

The internal Stable Isotope Standard Protein Epitope Signature Tag (SIS PrEST) was designed to contain proteotypic peptides of the protease domain of apo(a) (S1 Table) [45]. Atlas Antibodies AB (Stockholm, Sweden) performed recombinant protein production, purification, and standard quantification. The stock concentration of the SIS PrEST was 23.2 μM. The SIS PrEST was diluted to a concentration of 20 nM in LC-MS grade water. LC-SRM/MS assays were developed with the following constraints: Peptide ions with a length of 5–25 amino acids and a precursor charge state z = 2,3 and product ion charge state z = 1,2 were screened. Only b- and y-ions were included in the analysis.

Biological samples

Plasma (K2-EDTA) for method development was collected from five healthy non-obese Caucasian volunteers, three female and two male donors, obtained from the AstraZeneca R&D Gothenburg biobank. Moreover, an additional ten randomly chosen human plasma samples also obtained from the AstraZeneca R&D Gothenburg biobank of healthy volunteers were used for the immunoassay measurements. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The study was performed according to local ethical regulations following approval from the regional ethics committee “Regionala etikprövningsnämnden i Göteborg” in Gothenburg, Sweden. The plasma samples were pooled and aliquoted into 0.5 ml Protein LoBind Microcentrifuge Eppendorf tubes that were subsequently stored at -80°C and also used as quality control samples. A well-characterized healthy sample cohort (The Swedish Science for Life Laboratory SCAPIS Wellness Profiling (S3WP) was analyzed [46]. Informed consent was obtained for all participants. The study was performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and the study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Göteborg, Sweden (Regionala etikprövnignsnämnden, Gothenburg, Dnr 407–15, 2015-06-25). All samples were de-identified and randomized prior to the proteomics analysis.

In-solution digestion protocol

Samples and SIS PrEST standards were denatured and reduced in a final concentration of 6.7 mM TCEP, 9 M Urea, 300 mM Trizma buffer (pH 8.0) at 37°C (650 rpm) for 1 hour in a ThermoMixer (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany). Subsequently, alkylation was performed by the addition of 2-chloroacetamide (CAA) to a final concentration of 20 mM followed by incubation in the dark for another 30 min at room temperature. The samples were diluted by addition of 100 mM Tris buffer (pH 8.0) to reach a urea concentration of 0.7 M before addition of trypsin with a substrate to enzyme ratio of 30:1. The tryptic digestion was performed overnight for 17 h at 37°C (650 rpm) in a ThermoMixer. The digestion was terminated by quenching with formic acid (FA) with a final concentration of 1%.

Automated solid-phase extraction

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) of the digested plasma samples was performed on a Bravo Agilent AssayMAP liquid handler robotic system using reversed-phase (RP-S) 5 μl cartridges (G5496-60033, Agilent technologies, USA) in order to desalt and concentrate the samples. The method has been described in detail elsewhere [34]. Briefly, a total amount of approximately 100 μg of peptides were loaded on the RP-S cartridges. After the run, the peptides were eluted (10 μl of 60% acetonitrile, 0.1% TFA) and collected into an elution plate (Eppendorf PCR plate, Cat no. 0030129300) where the wells contained 90 μl of 0.1% FA, resulting in a total peptide concentration of about 1 μg/μl.

Standard curves

The SIS PrEST was serially diluted (n = 12) into the plasma pool (five healthy volunteers) in a 2-fold manner, covering a range from 1 μM to 0.49 nM. Each calibration point was digested in triplicates, as outlined above, and analyzed using the developed LC-SRM/MS method. Standard curves were established by using the median ratio calculated between the standard peptides and the endogenous peptides for each spike in level. Standard curves were established according to CPTAC guidelines [47].

Stability study

Three freeze/thaw cycles were performed with aliquots of pooled human plasma stored at -80°C for the analyte stability study. Three aliquots were thawed in a water bath at room temperature. One aliquot of thawed plasma was put in the refrigerator awaiting digestion. The remaining aliquots of thawed plasma were frozen on dry ice and stored at -80°C for one hour. The procedure was then repeated for the second and third aliquot at different days. Thereafter, each thawed plasma aliquot was digested in triplicate as described above, subsequently followed by SPE and LC-SRM/MS analysis.

Assay evaluation in the repeatability experiment

The single-laboratory precision of the apo(a) assay was calculated as the intraday and interday variation between samples, respectively, and were determined as the coefficient of variation in percentage (CV%). Triplicate parallel digestions were performed and subjected to LC-SRM/MS analysis across five consecutive days, where three technical replicates were measured for each sample on each day resulting in totally 45 LC-SRM/MS runs.

For estimation of the intraday CV the median (m) and standard deviation (sd) of three injections per sample were calculated as described by Hober et al. [34]. The acceptance criteria consisted of a CV value of ≤ 10%.

Immunoassay

A commercially available apo(a) enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Cat. No. 10-1106-01, Mercodia AB, Uppsala, Sweden) was used for the quantification of apo(a) in human plasma samples. The immunoassay is a sandwich ELISA with one capturing apo(a) antibody and one detecting apo(a) antibody. The measurements were conducted according to the manufacturer´s instructions of ten randomly selected human plasma samples from the AstraZeneca R&D Gothenburg biobank. The concentrations of apo(a) in the plasma samples were measured with the Spectramax M2 (Molecular devices) at 450 nm.

The kit measured the apo(a) concentration in units per liter (U/l) using five ready-to-use calibrators. A conversion factor was provided by the vendor to convert the concentration to mg/dl (1 U/l = 0.1254 mg/dl).

The ELISA was qualified by confirming dilution linearity, spike recovery and determination of the most suitable dilution for the samples by using two controls selected from the plasma samples. Thereafter, the confirmed dilution was used, and samples were analyzed and evaluated. Subsequently, the apo(a) levels determined by the ELISA assay were compared against the apo(a) levels determined by the SIS PrEST-based LC-SRM/MS assay.

Determination of calibrator concentration

LC-SRM/MS was used to quantify the calibrators included in the ELISA kit (Mercodia AB) in order to be able to correlate the results of the immunoassay with the results of the developed apo(a) SIS PrEST-based LC-SRM/MS assay. According to the manufacturer, the concentration of the highest concentration calibrator (no. 4) was 5.14 U/l. Using a known amount of SIS PrEST this was transformed into fmol per μl plasma using the LC-SRM/MS assay. Calibrator no. 4 (5.14 U/l) was dissolved in 250 μl of water and serially diluted three times (dilution scheme 1:1) and each sample was subjected to digestion, SPE and LC-SRM/MS analysis. The mean value from the three samples obtained from the LC-SRM/MS analysis in nM was used to calculate the absolute calibrator concentration.

LC-SRM/MS analysis of reference samples

Approximately 10 μg of peptides from SPE eluate were injected onto the LC-SRM/MS system. The LC system (Agilent 1290, Waldbronn, Germany) was interfaced to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (Agilent 6490, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using the Agilent Jet Stream flow ESI source operated at a positive ion mode. The peptide separation was performed on a Zorbax Eclipse XDB-C18 2.1 x 150 mm column packed with 1.8 μm silica particles with a pore size of 80 Å (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). The column compartment was maintained at a temperature of 50°C and the samples were refrigerated at 8°C in the autosampler. The flow rate was kept at 400 μl/min and the separation was accomplished using gradient elution, where the used gradient conditions are presented in S2 Table. Mobile phase A consisted of 0.1% FA in water and mobile phase B consisted of 0.1% FA in acetonitrile (ACN). Followed by the peptide samples, a blank sample consisting of 0.1% FA was injected into the LC-SRM/MS system to monitor carryover effects.

Digestion of samples from healthy individuals

Blood plasma from healthy individuals were collected in 6 mL EDTA tubes (Vacuette, 456243) and centrifuged immediately at 3000 rpm at room temperature. Following centrifugation, the plasma was transferred to 0.5 mL tubes (Sarstedt, 72.730.003) and frozen within 20 minutes. The samples were stored at -80°C before being transferred to SciLifeLab for examination. A pool of SIS PrESTs was made and spiked to empty wells of a 96 well LoBind plate (0030129512, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) according to Table 1. The plate was vacuum centrifuged to dry off any liquid. Ten times diluted plasma corresponding to two microliters of raw plasma was added to the plate of dried standards and the samples were digested following the same procedure as described. Each digest was then subjected to SPE using StageTips as described earlier [48].

Table 1. Composition of standard pool used for quantification of apolipoproteins in sample cohort.

HPRR ID Gene Amount per sample [pmol]
HPRR2190035 LPA 0.25
HPRR260124 APOA4 3.2
HPRR2760373 APOD 3.3
HPRR3340379 APOM 0.20
HPRR3450266 APOA1 37
HPRR350023 APOF 0.018
HPRR350088 APOL1 0.12
HPRR3720311 APOB 0.33
HPRR3730489 APOC1 1.5
HPRR4130067 APOC4 0.027
HPRR4200068 APOE 0.63
HPRR4320626 CLU 0.30
HPRR4430020 APOA2 5.2
HPRR5000605 LPA 0.36

LC-SRM/MS analysis of healthy individuals

Approximately 10 μg of peptide amount was loaded onto an Ultimate 3000 (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) LC-system fitted with a 15 cm EasySpray analytical column (PN ES802A rev.2, particle size: 2 μm, pore size: 100Å, 150 μm x 15 cm, Thermo Fischer Scientific) and an Acclaim PepMap 100 trap column (PN 160454, particle size: 5 μm, pore size: 100 Å, 0.3 mm x 5 mm, Thermo Fischer Scientific). The peptides were eluted across a linear gradient using a 35 min method, with a flowrate of 3 μl/min and a mobile phase consisting of solvent A (3% ACN, 0.1% FA) and solvent B (95% ACN, 0.1% FA) and a gradient as described in S3 Table. The LC was coupled to a TSQ Altis (Thermo Fischer Scientific) operating with a cycle time of 0.5 seconds monitoring the transitions specified in S4 Table.

Data analysis

All MS raw files were analyzed using Skyline (version 21.0.9.118) [49], in which the peak shape as well as the presence of both standard and endogenous peptides were assessed. This was done by calculating a rdtop-value for each peptide individually. Peptides not fulfilling these criteria (rdotp below 0.75) were excluded from the analysis. This provided a final dataset with a median rdotp > 0.99 The ratio between the spiked in standard and the endogenous peptides was used to calculate the molar concentration based on the known spike-in amount.

Data availability

All raw data files and extracted chromatograms can be accessed at Panorama Public [50]: https://panoramaweb.org/apoa.url. Additionally, all raw files can be accessed through ProteomeXchange (PXD026976) [51].

Results

Assay generation

Two separate apo(a) regions were targeted by using two separate SIS recombinant proteins as illustrated in Fig 1A. The total apo(a) concentration was determined by one standard designed to cover the plasminogen domain (PD, purple), which is unique in the protein sequence. The second standard was directed towards the K4 domain (blue) to determine the total concentration of repeated K4 domains (Fig 1B). The total number of K4 domains in relation to the PD domain was determined by normalizing the concentration values using the SIS standards. The protein concentration determination was performed using the same principle as previously described by Hober et al. [34]. The specific number of repeated K42-domains can be obtained by subtracting the number of peptides mapping to other K4 main types.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

A) Visualization of the homology of apo(a) to other human proteins plotted as identity based on HsID50 and the transcript ENSP00000321334 (red = high, green = low). T1-T10 is used to denote the K4 domains and PD designates the plasminogen domain. Three different SIS PrEST peptides are mapped to the sequence at the top. B) A schematic visualization of how the SIS PrESTs are used to determine the number of K4 domains following quantification of total apo(a) and the K4 domain upon proteolytic digestion. One SIS PrEST is used to determine the molar concentration of peptides mapping to the K4 domains and one SIS PrEST is used to determine the molar concentration of apo(a). The ratio between the concentration from the K4 domain and the molar concentration of apo(a) corresponds to the number of K4 repeats.

A set of seven theoretical proteotypic peptides from the PD was initially selected for this study (S5 Table). Two peptides were considered at risk of exhibiting post-translational modifications (according to Uniprot) and were discarded from the analysis, while the remaining five peptides were considered for further evaluation. This standard protein was produced, its peptides were screened, and assay parameters were optimized as previously described. (34, 35). The standards were spiked and serially diluted into pooled human plasma (n = 12) and analyzed by LC-SRM/MS. The peptides were validated over a wide concentration range by reverse standard curves (S1 Data) using the pooled human plasma as background. The results show that apo(a) is detectable across a broad dynamic range (Table 2), down to an estimated concentration of 3.5 nM using the peptide EAQLLVIENEVCNHYK(+3) for quantification (S1 Data). Here, the difference between the reported quantification and the known analyte dilution is known as the prediction error. The linearity of the peptide was thoroughly evaluated and the LOD, LOQ and assay linearity was assessed according to guideline requirements presented by The Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC) for targeted proteomics assays [41]. Calculations of the characteristics are based on a reverse curve approach [52]. The linear dynamic range for the target protein apo(a) was established by serial dilution of the SIS PrEST standard spiked into the pooled human plasma matrix at different concentrations, ranging from 0.49 nM to 1.0 μM. The standard curve and linearity measurements resulted in a linear response for apo(a) from 0.5 pmol/μl to 7.8 fmol/μl. Reverse standard curves were used to analyze all selected peptides from the SIS PrEST. Because of its sensitivity, determined by the lowest LOQ, the peptide EAQLLVIENEVCNHYK(+3) was chosen for the measurement of the plasminogen domain.

Table 2. Quantitative performance of EAQLLVIENEVCNHYK across a range between 490 fM to 1,000 nM in human plasma.

Conc. [nM] Ratio to Standard Standard deviation CV [%] Predicted conc. [nM] Prediction error [%]
1000 0.0169 0.00030 1.8 NA NA
500 0.0485 0.0015 3.1 624. 24.8
250 0.145 0.0040 2.7 225 10.0
120 0.335 0.0060 1.8 109 13.0
62 0.692 0.019 2.7 56.4 9.8
31 1.45 0.10 7.2 28.8 7.8
16 2.73 0.31 11.3 16.3 4.4
7.8 5.13 0.91 17.6 9.20 17.8
3.9 7.40 1.5 21.3 NA NA
2 10.5 1.9 18.5 NA NA
0.98 14.4 5.8 40.0 NA NA
0.49 19.2 1.9 9.7 NA NA

Assay repeatability

The apo(a) assay repeatability was investigated to determine the technical variation during sample preparation taking place at different days. Samples from one human plasma pool of healthy volunteers (n = 10) were thawed daily and prepared in triplicates over a total period of five days (Fig 2A). Samples were injected in three technical replicates and the sample median was used as the daily measurement. The assay’s intraday variation was calculated as the mean of CVs obtained from triplicate samples analyzed within a single-day run. The interday variation was calculated from the triplicate measurements made across five days. The assay showed high repeatability (Fig 2A) with an intraday CV of 4.7% and an interday CV of 7.8%.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

A) Repeatability data indicating the intraday variation during each day of the five-day period and the overall inter-day variation of the proteotypic peptide. B) Stability freeze-thaw data of three cycles for the proteotypic peptides. In both figures 2 times standard deviation interval is visualized with error bars.

The robustness of the assay was investigated after repeated freeze-thaw cycles. Three samples from a pool of human plasma were subjected to three repeated freeze-thaw cycles over the course of 3 days. Samples were digested by trypsin in triplicates and the CV was calculated as the mean value of the median of three technical injections. The results show that apo(a) is stable after three repeated freeze-thaw events with a CV below 5% for each peptide (Fig 2B). This finding indicates that the protein can be quantified in multiple consecutive experiments while being thawed and frozen several times without the assay losing its quantitative accuracy.

Accuracy of immuno-assays quantifying apo(a)

A commercial CE-IVD certified ELISA assay was obtained to verify the performance of the established LC-SRM/MS assay. Briefly, the Mercodia Lp(a) ELISA 10-1106-01 assay has been benchmarked against three different lots and concentrations of Bio-Rad Liquicheck Lp(a) control, which in turn have been quantified by five different methods, namely Abbott ARCHITECT cSystems (Biokit), Beckman Coulter IMMAGE, Binding Site SPAplus, Roche/Hitachi cobas cSystems and Siemens BN Series Nephelometers. This serum aliquot is used for quality control and equivalence determination for clinical assays. The CE-IVD certified reference material consists of a human serum containing stabilized triglyceride components of human blood plasma and stabilized apolipoproteins levels used as quality control material to monitor the ongoing precision of clinical laboratory systems. The results in U/L were converted to μg/μl using a specific conversion factor, determined by five different methodologies that are based on external controls (Bio-Rad Liquicheck Immunology Controls). The immunoassay is based on a number of calibrators that have to be selected for each sample cohort individually to quantify apo(a) with high precision and accuracy. One calibrator (no. 4) with a concentration of 0.129 μg/μl, was selected as the optimal range based on a pool of ten individuals. The established LC-SRM/MS assay towards apo(a) was used to quantify the calibrator and was determined to be 2.3 nM. This value was used to convert the concentrations obtained by ELISA to molar concentrations. The immunoassay was used to determine the concentration of apo(a) in 10 individuals (Table 3). The same samples were analyzed using the apo(a) LC-SRM/MS assay as described above. The immunoassay and the LC-SRM/MS method correlated with an R2 of 0.92 (Fig 3). The immunoassay’s accuracy was calculated based on the LC-SRM/MS result, and the antibody-based assay showed good accuracy in the concentration range that lies closer to the pooled plasma reference. However, a deviation between the methods was noted for the samples with plasma concentrations below LOQ of the LC-SRM/MS assay (Table 3).

Table 3. Quantification results of apo(a) from ELISA and LC-SRM/MS.

Sample ELISA [nM] LC-SRM/MS [nM] Difference [%]
Pool 32.1 29.3 9.4
S1 33.7 47.1 -28.5
S4 19.6 23.3 -15.9
S6 1.9 7.1 -73.3
S9 59.8 60 -0.3
S11 31.2 32.9 -5.2
S13 12.1 18.1 -33.3
S14 216.8 201.3 7.7
S16 91 95.8 -5
S17 0.4 4.9 -91.8
S20 167.5 242.2 -30.8

Fig 3. Comparison between CE-IVD approved immuno-assay and the targeted proteomics method.

Fig 3

The ELISA result has been transformed to a molar concentration (from U/l) after quantifying calibrator no. 4 using LC-SRM/MS in triplicate measurements.

Profiling a wellness cohort of healthy individuals

A previously well-profiled cohort [46] of individuals without any known disease had previously been investigated using the SIS PrEST assay measuring the K4 repeats [48]. The same samples were used to quantify total apo(a) molar concentration and number of K4 domains. A subset of plasma samples (90 samples + 6 pools) was de-identified prior to quantification of apo(a). The final apo(a) assay was combined with a previously established assay capable of profiling 13 apolipoproteins in human plasma in multiplex [34], allowing for deeper apolipoprotein profile characterization. The final plate contained six replicates of pooled plasma (3 males, 2 females) used to assess the assay’s technical variation.

The overall concentration of apo(a) ranged between 311 nM and 1.9 nM (Fig 4A). In order to determine the number of K4 domains within a sample, both the molar concentration of the peptide representing K4 domains (GTYSTTVTGR) and the molar concentration of the peptide EAQLLVIENEVCNHYK, corresponding to the total molar amount of circulating apo(a), were analyzed. By dividing the molar concentration of GTYSTTVTGR with the molar concentration of EAQLLVIENEVCNHYK, the average number of K4 repeats per apo(a) molecule in a sample was obtained. A constant of six repeats have to be added to the obtained number of K4 repeats to account for domains not possessing the GTYSTTVTGR peptide (Fig 1A). In the S3WP cohort, most individuals had between 14–21 K4 repeats (Fig 4B), which correspond to 5–12 K42 repeats. Fig 4C shows no evident correlation between the number of repeats and the molar concentration of apo(a). Interestingly, two different clusters appear in the analysis, which can be separated by a concentration cutoff of 47 nM. The cluster with values >47 nM shows a negative correlation (rho = -0.54, p = 0.013) previously described in larger cohorts [10] and can be defined by individuals with more than about 13–14 K42 repeats. The other cluster represents individuals with low K42 copy numbers, where no correlation between the number of K42 repeats and apo(a) concentration is observed.

Fig 4. Apolipoprotein plasma profiling of 90 individuals.

Fig 4

A) Beeswarm plot visualizing the total apo(a) levels among the 90 profiled subjects determined by the peptide EAQLLVIENEVCNHYK. B) Histogram of the average number of K4 domains present in the profiled samples, determined by the peptide GTYSTTVTGR. C) The average number of K4 repeats plotted against the total plasma concentration of apo(a).

Discussion

The described method, using the specificity of targeted proteomics and mass spectrometry, allows the measurement of the molar concentrations of apo(a) as well as the average isoform size of the apo(a) protein in clinical studies. The assay shows a higher degree of repeatability and performance than a corresponding ELISA test that indirectly estimates the molar concentration of apo(a) in blood by using different references. The targeted mass spectrometry assay using spiked SIS PrESTs enables a direct measurement of peptides without any conversion factors and can be applied over large dynamic concentration ranges suitable for multiplex plasma protein quantitation. Additionally, each SIS PrEST standard can be individually quality assured and quantified by mass spectrometry upfront any spike-in experiment thanks to the use of a common tag sequence. This guarantees that their individual quantities are anchored to the same common point [45]. The quantification is anchored to an ultra-purified tag protein that has been subjected to amino acid analysis to determine its concentration on an absolute scale. Moreover, with the proteotypic peptides being released upon digestion, the quantitative bias between different peptides has previously been shown to be reduced [34]. It can also efficiently account for digestion accuracy biases when using different proteases [53]. This also allows for the unbiased evaluation of the peptides present in the PrEST sequence during method development. When working with high multiplexes of SIL peptides, an unbiased evaluation of peptides can be costly, as there is a need to specifically synthesize the peptides to be interrogated. This can lead to the exclusion of well-performing peptides due to their presumed unsuitability as quantitative proteotypic peptides. This can be avoided when generating assays using SIS PrESTs. However, the peptide selection remains limited to the peptides present in the PrEST sequence, shifting the focus from singular peptides to protein regions. The use of spiked standards at the protein level has also been shown to allow for short digestion protocols (≤60 minutes) with equally high precision as for overnight digestions (12 h) [35, 37]. Additionally, the SIS PREST’s ability to deliver robust readouts even after repeated freeze-thaw cycles suggests that this methodology, where samples are spiked with internal standards prior to enzymatic digestion, can help facilitate the introduction of LC-SRM/MS into a clinical setting. It has also been shown that the SIS PrEST can be stored long-term in a vacuum-dried state for addition-only protocols, which could prove an attractive strategy for clinical applications [37].

In this study, the new methodology was used to determine concentrations of apo(a) as well as the average number of K42 repeats by quantifying K4-specific peptides in a cohort of 90 individuals without any known disease [46]. In this relatively small cohort with a limited variance in K42 repeats, it was not possible to detect the negative correlation between the average number of K42 repeats and the apo(a) concentrations previously observed [10]. Despite not revealing the absolute isoform size of the various populations of circulating apo(a) molecules in blood, this approach for estimating the average circulating isoform size of apo(a) may yet provide useful insights into VTE risk, as described by other studies [54]. As the strategy allows for multiplex analysis of the average isoform size together with quantitative analysis of other proteins, compared to single plex orthogonal methods for determining the isoform size in absolute numbers, it can therefore be deployed in clinical settings without requiring additional experiments to be performed.

The negative correlation could be explained by more efficient hepatic secretion of the shorter isoforms of apo(a) since the production rather than catabolism of Lp(a) is the major determinant of the plasma concentrations. In the relatively small study cohort, visual inspection indicates a negative correlation between apo(a) concentrations and the number of K42 repeats among individuals with more than 13–14 repeats, while a lower number of repeats does not seem to influence the plasma levels. Larger study cohorts are needed to investigate if there is a threshold for the inverse association between the number of repeats and plasma apo(a) concentrations.

The developed assay allows for accurate measurements of molar concentrations of apo(a) and size of apo(a) in an assay suitable for clinical studies. Further studies are needed in larger cohorts with genetic determinations of K42 copy numbers to allow comparison of apo(a) levels with average apo(a) isoform size and LPA genetics.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Sequence of SIS PrEST mapping to apo(a).

(XLSX)

S2 Table. LC gradient used for analysis on Agilent 6490.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. LC gradient used for analysis of 90 plasma samples.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Transitions monitored for analysis of 90 plasma samples.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. Prototypic peptides from the plasminogen domain of apolipoprotein(a).

(XLSX)

S1 Data. Reverse standard curves.

(PDF)

S1 Graphical abstract

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the entire staff of the Human Protein Atlas Protein Factory at Albanova.

Data Availability

All raw data files and extracted chromatograms can be accessed at Panorama: https://panoramaweb.org/apoa.url, username: panorama+reviewer42@proteinms.net, password: xWuIHYpN Additionally, all raw files have been uploaded to ProteomeXchange with the data set id PXD026976.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Utermann G., and Weber W.. 1983. Protein composition of Lp(a) lipoprotein from human plasma. FEBS Lett 154: 357–361. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(83)80182-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gaubatz J. W., Chari M. V., Nava M. L., Guyton J. R., and Morrisett J. D.. 1987. Isolation and characterization of the two major apoproteins in human lipoprotein [a]. J Lipid Res 28: 69–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hobbs H. H., and White A. L.. 1999. Lipoprotein(a): intrigues and insights. Curr Opin Lipidol 10: 225–236. doi: 10.1097/00041433-199906000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.McLean J. W., Tomlinson J. E., Kuang W. J., Eaton D. L., Chen E. Y., Fless G. M., et al. 1987. cDNA sequence of human apolipoprotein(a) is homologous to plasminogen. Nature 330: 132–137. doi: 10.1038/330132a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Koschinsky M. L., Beisiegel U., Henne-Bruns D., Eaton D. L., and Lawn R. M.. 1990. Apolipoprotein(a) size heterogeneity is related to variable number of repeat sequences in its mRNA. Biochemistry 29: 640–644. doi: 10.1021/bi00455a007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lackner C., Cohen J. C., and Hobbs H. H.. 1993. Molecular definition of the extreme size polymorphism in apolipoprotein(a). Hum Mol Genet 2: 933–940. doi: 10.1093/hmg/2.7.933 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.van der Hoek Y. Y., Wittekoek M. E., Beisiegel U., Kastelein J. J., and Koschinsky M. L.. 1993. The apolipoprotein(a) kringle IV repeats which differ from the major repeat kringle are present in variably-sized isoforms. Hum Mol Genet 2: 361–366. doi: 10.1093/hmg/2.4.361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Enas E. A., Varkey B., Dharmarajan T. S., Pare G., and Bahl V. K.. 2019. Lipoprotein(a): An independent, genetic, and causal factor for cardiovascular disease and acute myocardial infarction. Indian Heart J 71: 99–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2019.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kronenberg F. 2014. Genetic determination of lipoprotein(a) and its association with cardiovascular disease: convenient does not always mean better. J Intern Med 276: 243–247. doi: 10.1111/joim.12207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schmidt K., Noureen A., Kronenberg F., and Utermann G.. 2016. Structure, function, and genetics of lipoprotein (a). J Lipid Res 57: 1339–1359. doi: 10.1194/jlr.R067314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nordestgaard B. G., and Langsted A.. 2016. Lipoprotein (a) as a cause of cardiovascular disease: insights from epidemiology, genetics, and biology. J Lipid Res 57: 1953–1975. doi: 10.1194/jlr.R071233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kronenberg F., and Utermann G.. 2013. Lipoprotein(a): resurrected by genetics. J Intern Med 273: 6–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2012.02592.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kronenberg F. 2016. Human Genetics and the Causal Role of Lipoprotein(a) for Various Diseases. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 30: 87–100. doi: 10.1007/s10557-016-6648-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gudbjartsson D. F., Thorgeirsson G., Sulem P., Helgadottir A., Gylfason A., Saemundsdottir J., et al. 2019. Lipoprotein(a) Concentration and Risks of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 74: 2982–2994. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tsimikas S., Fazio S., Ferdinand K. C., Ginsberg H. N., Koschinsky M. L., Marcovina S. M., et al. 2018. NHLBI Working Group Recommendations to Reduce Lipoprotein(a)-Mediated Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Aortic Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 71: 177–192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tsimikas S. 2017. A Test in Context: Lipoprotein(a): Diagnosis, Prognosis, Controversies, and Emerging Therapies. J Am Coll Cardiol 69: 692–711. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Capoulade R., Chan K. L., Yeang C., Mathieu P., Bosse Y., Dumesnil J. G., et al. 2015. Oxidized Phospholipids, Lipoprotein(a), and Progression of Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 66: 1236–1246. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Varvel S., McConnell J. P., and Tsimikas S.. 2016. Prevalence of Elevated Lp(a) Mass Levels and Patient Thresholds in 532 359 Patients in the United States. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 36: 2239–2245. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.308011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nordestgaard B. G., Chapman M. J., Ray K., Boren J., Andreotti F., Watts G. F., et al. European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus. 2010. Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current status. Eur Heart J 31: 2844–2853. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Afshar M., Pilote L., Dufresne L., Engert J. C., and Thanassoulis G.. 2016. Lipoprotein(a) Interactions With Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Other Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Premature Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). J Am Heart Assoc 5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Boffa M. B., and Koschinsky M. L.. 2016. Lipoprotein (a): truly a direct prothrombotic factor in cardiovascular disease? J Lipid Res 57: 745–757. doi: 10.1194/jlr.R060582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Burgess S., Ference B. A., Staley J. R., Freitag D. F., Mason A. M., Nielsen S. F., et al. European Prospective Investigation Into, and C. Nutrition-Cardiovascular Disease. 2018. Association of LPA Variants With Risk of Coronary Disease and the Implications for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis. JAMA Cardiol 3: 619–627. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Clarke R., Peden J. F., Hopewell J. C., Kyriakou T., Goel A., Heath S. C., et al. 2009. Genetic variants associated with Lp(a) lipoprotein level and coronary disease. N Engl J Med 361: 2518–2528. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0902604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kamstrup P. R., Tybjaerg-Hansen A., Steffensen R., and Nordestgaard B. G.. 2009. Genetically elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA 301: 2331–2339. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Emerging Risk Factors C., Erqou S., Kaptoge S., Perry P. L., Di Angelantonio E., Thompson A., et al. 2009. Lipoprotein(a) concentration and the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and nonvascular mortality. JAMA 302: 412–423. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Viney N. J., van Capelleveen J. C., Geary R. S., Xia S., Tami J. A., Yu R. Z., et al. 2016. Antisense oligonucleotides targeting apolipoprotein(a) in people with raised lipoprotein(a): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trials. Lancet 388: 2239–2253. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31009-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hu B., Weng Y., Xia X. H., Liang X. J., and Huang Y.. 2019. Clinical advances of siRNA therapeutics. J Gene Med 21: e3097. doi: 10.1002/jgm.3097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tsimikas S., Viney N. J., Hughes S. G., Singleton W., Graham M. J., Baker B. F., et al. 2015. Antisense therapy targeting apolipoprotein(a): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 study. Lancet 386: 1472–1483. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61252-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Marcovina S. M., and Albers J. J.. 2016. Lipoprotein (a) measurements for clinical application. J Lipid Res 57: 526–537. doi: 10.1194/jlr.R061648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Marcovina S. M., Clouet-Foraison N., Koschinsky M. L., Lowenthal M. S., Orquillas A., Boffa M. B., et al. 2021. Development of an LC-MS/MS Proposed Candidate Reference Method for the Standardization of Analytical Methods to Measure Lipoprotein(a). Clinical Chemistry 67: 490–499. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Blanchard V., Chemello K., Hollstein T., Hong-Fong C. C., Schumann F., Grenkowitz T., et al. 2022. The size of apolipoprotein (a) is an independent determinant of the reduction in lipoprotein (a) induced by PCSK9 inhibitors. Cardiovascular Research 118: 2103–2111. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvab247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Blanchard V., Garçon D., Jaunet C., Chemello K., Billon-Crossouard S., Aguesse A., et al. 2020. A high-throughput mass spectrometry-based assay for large-scale profiling of circulating human apolipoproteins. Journal of Lipid Research 61: 1128–1139. doi: 10.1194/jlr.D120000835 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Marcovina S. M., Clouet-Foraison N., Koschinsky M. L., Lowenthal M. S., Orquillas A., Boffa M. B., et al. 2021. Development of an LC-MS/MS Proposed Candidate Reference Method for the Standardization of Analytical Methods to Measure Lipoprotein(a). Clin Chem 67: 490–499. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hober A., Edfors F., Ryaboshapkina M., Malmqvist J., Rosengren L., Percy A. J., et al. 2019. Absolute Quantification of Apolipoproteins Following Treatment with Omega-3 Carboxylic Acids and Fenofibrate Using a High Precision Stable Isotope-labeled Recombinant Protein Fragments Based SRM Assay. Mol Cell Proteomics 18: 2433–2446. doi: 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Edfors F., Forsstrom B., Vunk H., Kotol D., Fredolini C., Maddalo G., et al. 2019. Screening a Resource of Recombinant Protein Fragments for Targeted Proteomics. J Proteome Res 18: 2706–2718. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.8b00924 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nilsson P., Paavilainen L., Larsson K., Odling J., Sundberg M., Andersson A. C., et al. 2005. Towards a human proteome atlas: high-throughput generation of mono-specific antibodies for tissue profiling. Proteomics 5: 4327–4337. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200500072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kotol D., Hober A., Strandberg L., Svensson A.-S., Uhlén M., and Edfors F.. 2021. Targeted proteomics analysis of plasma proteins using recombinant protein standards for addition only workflows. BioTechniques 71: 473–483. doi: 10.2144/btn-2021-0047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Oeckl P., Steinacker P., and Otto M.. 2018. Comparison of Internal Standard Approaches for SRM Analysis of Alpha-Synuclein in Cerebrospinal Fluid. Journal of Proteome Research 17: 516–523. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lassman M. E., McLaughlin T. M., Zhou H., Pan Y., Marcovina S. M., Laterza O., et al. 2014. Simultaneous quantitation and size characterization of apolipoprotein(a) by ultra-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 28: 1101–1106. doi: 10.1002/rcm.6883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hoofnagle A. N., Becker J. O., Oda M. N., Cavigiolio G., Mayer P., and Vaisar T.. 2012. Multiple-reaction monitoring-mass spectrometric assays can accurately measure the relative protein abundance in complex mixtures. Clin Chem 58: 777–781. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.173856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Carr S. A., Abbatiello S. E., Ackermann B. L., Borchers C., Domon B., Deutsch E. W., et al. 2014. Targeted peptide measurements in biology and medicine: best practices for mass spectrometry-based assay development using a fit-for-purpose approach. Mol Cell Proteomics 13: 907–917. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M113.036095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lange V., Picotti P., Domon B., and Aebersold R.. 2008. Selected reaction monitoring for quantitative proteomics: a tutorial. Mol Syst Biol 4: 222. doi: 10.1038/msb.2008.61 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Schubert O. T., Rost H. L., Collins B. C., Rosenberger G., and Aebersold R.. 2017. Quantitative proteomics: challenges and opportunities in basic and applied research. Nat Protoc 12: 1289–1294. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zhong W., Gummesson A., Tebani A., Karlsson M. J., Hong M. G., Schwenk J. M., et al. 2020. Whole-genome sequence association analysis of blood proteins in a longitudinal wellness cohort. Genome Med 12: 53. doi: 10.1186/s13073-020-00755-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zeiler M., Straube W. L., Lundberg E., Uhlen M., and Mann M.. 2012. A Protein Epitope Signature Tag (PrEST) library allows SILAC-based absolute quantification and multiplexed determination of protein copy numbers in cell lines. Mol Cell Proteomics 11: O111 009613. doi: 10.1074/mcp.O111.009613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Tebani A., Gummesson A., Zhong W., Koistinen I. S., Lakshmikanth T., Olsson L. M., et al. 2020. Integration of molecular profiles in a longitudinal wellness profiling cohort. Nat Commun 11: 4487. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18148-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Grant R. P., and Hoofnagle A. N.. 2014. From lost in translation to paradise found: enabling protein biomarker method transfer by mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 60: 941–944. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.224840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kotol D., Hunt H., Hober A., Karlsson M. J., Forsstrom B., Gummesson A., et al. 2020. Longitudinal Plasma Protein Profiling Using Targeted Proteomics and Recombinant Protein Standards. J Proteome Res. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.MacLean B., Tomazela D. M., Shulman N., Chambers M., Finney G. L., Frewen B., et al. 2010. Skyline: an open source document editor for creating and analyzing targeted proteomics experiments. Bioinformatics 26: 966–968. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sharma V., Eckels J., Taylor G. K., Shulman N. J., Stergachis A. B., Joyner S. A., et al. 2014. Panorama: a targeted proteomics knowledge base. J Proteome Res 13: 4205–4210. doi: 10.1021/pr5006636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hermjakob H., and Apweiler R.. 2006. The Proteomics Identifications Database (PRIDE) and the ProteomExchange Consortium: making proteomics data accessible. Expert Review of Proteomics 3: 1–3. doi: 10.1586/14789450.3.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Percy A. J., Michaud S. A., Jardim A., Sinclair N. J., Zhang S., Mohammed Y., et al. 2017. Multiplexed MRM-based assays for the quantitation of proteins in mouse plasma and heart tissue. Proteomics 17. doi: 10.1002/pmic.201600097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Woessmann J., Kotol D., Hober A., Uhlén M., and Edfors F.. 2022. Addressing the Protease Bias in Quantitative Proteomics. Journal of Proteome Research. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Cheung M. C., Albers J. J., Kennedy H., Deguchi H., Elias D. J., Averell P. M., et al. 2010. Association of Apo(a)isoform size with dyslipoproteinemia in male Venous Thrombosis patients. Clinica Chimica Acta 411: 1279–1283. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2010.05.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jon M Jacobs

18 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-14035Targeted Proteomics Using Stable Isotope Labeled Protein Fragments Enables Precise and Robust Determination of Total Apolipoprotein(a) in Human PlasmaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miliotis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After extensive review, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. As you can see, there are a variety of comments and concerns provided by the reviewers below. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2022 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,

Jon M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: M.U. is a co-founder of Atlas Antibodies AB."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: Summary:

The authors present a novel approach to quantify apolipoprotein(a) by LC-SRM/MS as a surrogate measure of Lp(a) in plasma using SIS-PREST standards spiked in the samples. The method involves spiking of the samples with SIS-PREST standards, digestion of the proteins, clean-up, and concentration by SPE and injection on LC-MS/MS using a targeted method to measure peptides from 1) the repeatable KIV type 2 domain to determine the average apo(a) isoform size and 2) from the singular Protease Domain to measure the absolute concentration of apo(a). The authors present the development and validation of the method as well as a comparison with an ELISA sandwich assay to measure Lp(a) in a study of 100 individual plasma samples.

The research is timely, and the article is well written, the approach is interesting and perspectives for multiplex analyses are highly relevant to the current context of Lp(a) measurements.

Major comments:

Although the validation of the LC-MS/MS method seems to have been performed thoroughly and according to relevant standards for LC-MS/MS method validation, I think some validation points are still missing from the article in its current state.

In particular, there is no assessment of the LC-MS/MS method accuracy. I assume the authors intended to validate accuracy of their assay using the comparison to an ELISA assay but there are some issues with this approach in my opinion. First, the ELISA kit used for the comparison does not provide results in nmol/L while this is the current recommendation for Lp(a) measurements in clinical routine as stated in the introduction by the authors. Moreover, it is unclear if this assay is traceable to the current reference for Lp(a) and if its accuracy has been validated. Secondly, because the authors used an ELISA comparison assay that does not provide results in nmol/L but in Unit/L, they value assigned these calibrators using their own LC-MS/MS method and the SIS-PREST strategy they developed. I think this is a major issue because they are calibrating both their LC-MS/MS method and the comparison method using the exact same calibration system. As a consequence, the comparison of the results from the two methods only shows how good their calibration system is, not how accurate the LC-MS/MS method is. Therefore, these results are not showing method accuracy. To circumvent this issue, I would recommend using an ELISA assay that provides results in nmol/L and is traceable to the WHO/IFCC SRM-2B reference to perform this comparison again. I would also recommend using the Deming regression model with associated error to present the comparison data rather than simple plot as in current article. Finally, the LC-MS/MS method includes a SPE step that is known to have potential recovery issues and the authors did not present data on the assessment of digestion completeness and parallelism to validate the method. I think spiking experiments to validate recovery across the whole LC-MS/MS digestion procedure are needed to finalize the validation in addition to the comparison with the ELISA assay in order to assess the LC-MS/MS method accuracy.

In addition, I think the authors need to clarify and homogenize their statement on the measurement of apo(a) isoform size by LC-MS/MS because it is inconsistent across the article. Indeed, it is of major importance to highlight that measuring a peptide on the KIV2 domain of Lp(a) by LC-MS/MS only provides a measure of the average apo(a) isoform size because 80% of individuals are heterozygous for the LPA gene. It is therefore relevant for only the estimated 20% homozygote individuals. The authors report a cluster of values that behave differently, I think it could be interesting to investigate whether these individuals are homozygote or heterozygote by measuring the apo(a) isoform size using gel electrophoresis as originally reported by Marcovina and colleagues. Moreover, the relevance of the average apo(a) isoform size parameter is still quite debated. Here, the authors present a study on 100 individual plasma samples and investigate the correlation between apo(a) isoform size (which should be labelled average isoform size to clarify) and apo(a) concentration. I think this study is interesting but discussion on the results obtained does not mention the issue of the average isoform size and only identifies the small sample size as a limitation to results interpretation. It also only briefly discusses results obtained by other studies who already investigated this comparison. I think the article would greatly benefit from a more thorough discussion on the aforementioned point.

Finally, I think that overall, the discussion is missing substance and would greatly benefit from some additional points. There are now several methods published on the measurement of Lp(a) by LC-MS/MS and the authors did not discuss the benefits or limitations of their method compared to the others already published. The choice of the peptide is also singular compared to the other methods and a more detailed discussion on the choice of this peptide rather than the LFLE peptide most method used would be beneficial. The benefits of the SIS-PREST approach compared to classic SIL peptides could be of interest too.

Minor comments:

1. Some more explanations as to the way SIS-PREST are digested and used would be beneficial in the introduction.

2. The way the SIS-PREST calibration standards are prepared is unclear. How many calibration points are there? Are the standards digested in duplicate or triplicate?

3. How was the SIS-PREST standard concentration determined? I think it would be beneficial to detail this information more

4. For the intermediate precision assessment, it seems like there is a drift in the values after 5 days. Did the authors perform tests to assess if the slope is significant? Were the calibration standards freshly prepared for all assays of the precision study? It looks like the standards used for all five assays were the same and that there may be a stability issue.

5. I am quite unclear as to why there are 2 different LC-MS/MS injection methods reported for the reference samples and healthy samples. I think the distinction between these samples and their role in the study is missing in the article.

6. Figure 1.A) legend mentions 3 different SIS-PREST peptides but only two are showing on the figure. Figure 1.B) Please also clarify “average” number of K4 repeats.

7. Figure 2: I think including the 2SD interval on the figures would be beneficial.

8. Figure 3: I think showing the identity line and using a Deming regression model would be better to show the comparison data. Also, it is not explicitly explained why the concentrations were log transformed, please clarify.

9. Figure 4B and 4C are not very clear and would benefit from some improvements on readability.

10. Table 2: How was de prediction error determined?

11. Graphical abstract: mention “average” number of K4 repeats

12. Supplementary Data 1: What is the part on reproducibility about? Was this assessed?

13. Supplementary Table: Could these be all merged into a single file for simplicity and more practicality?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript by Hober et al. focusses on the use of mass spectrometry to measure Lp(a) concentrations and apo(a) size polymorphism in human plasma samples. The work is conducted adequately BUT identical studies using the same methodologies have been developed and published in recent years. These studies are not even mentioned in the manuscript except for that of Lassman (2014). The only noticeable difference between this new study and the published ones is that the authors used a distinct proteotypic peptide for apo(a) concentration determination.

Lassman (2014) is cited but only to mention that counting the KIV domains by MS is do-able. It is indeed do-able since it has been done in the past and has been used by many groups for many different studies.

Please refer for instance to the most recent reports (among others):

PMID33517366 (Marcovina 2021)

PMID34314498 (Blanchard 2021)

PMID 32404332 (Blanchard 2020)

Reviewer #3: This is a well-written manuscript from a strong and experienced team of which some co-authors I know by relevant publications in proteomic field and HUPO consortium. The authors offered an unconventional approach for the absolute quantification of plasma circulating supramolecular complex, which is LDL-like particle, or Lp(a). The proposed approach permits simultaneous measurement of concentration Apolipoprotein A and estimation of constituent KIV2 repeats, the number of which may vary broadly between subjects. The established method has been validated by traditional ELISA and demonstrated satisfied correlation and overlap within relevant linear range of concentrations.

1. The number of calibrating levels for the developed LC-SRM (page 6, Material and Methods, section “Standard curve”) is not indicated. It is essential to indicate the total number of calibrating levels and the whole range expected to cover by calibration, albeit readers can find this information in Supplementary data. Such information should be defined in the main text first in order to understand calibration range.

2. Why retention time window is so wide (5 minutes) for the developed LC-SRM (Supplementary Table 4)? The wider retention time window, the more concurrent transitions are collected within certain window and less dwell time you obtain per a transition. For example, there are transitions with only 0.866 ms dwell time. Is it enough for the efficient signal accumulation? The authors used quite robust and reproducible UPLC system giving, probably, sharp peaks with 6-10 s full width (I assume) so they could define a narrow window within 1 minute or less.

3. Quality control of the obtained signal included curation of the “peak shape” as defined in the “Data analysis” section (page 10). It is absolutely unclear and insufficient information of what does the ‘peak shape’ mean? Chromatographic peak consist of many different but well-defined features and the ‘peak shape’ comprises of peak width, asymmetry, tailing, etc. I suggest authors have to provide some more details about the ‘peak shape’ criteria they used for the quality control.

4. Obviously, authors employed the Skyline tool for the selection of proper peptides and transitions. In this respect, authors have to indicate such criteria of selection (min-max length, charge states selected (because they used peptide-quantifier with the charge z = 3+), fragment ions type (b, y, a (included?)) and m/z range, definition and monoisotopic or average masses (because they utilized low-resolution instrument), etc. It is essential to apply such criteria in proper way.

5. No doubts as to perfectly done research and development, I suggest the lack of some important information. The authors used two different PrEST as illustrated in Figure 1 (page 11) and stated in the “Results” section (targeted by using two separate SIS recombinant proteins…) which is caused by the interest in specific calculation of K4 domain copy numbers per a molecule and by estimation of the total Apolipoprotein A concentration. However, I found only one of the PrEST constructions in the Supplementary Table 1, which corresponds to 1870-2006 region of canonical Apo A sequence and embodies peptide EAQLL… for particular protein quantification. But where is the second PrEST construction with the embedded K4 domain-specific sequence (GTYS…) for calculation of KIV2 copies?

6. I accept the defined LOD and LOQ calculated by authors and proposed approach for their calculation. I do not usher to refine and revise them, but I think LOD and LOQ are incorrect and inaccurately calculated. Based on my own and our laboratory experience, we regularly apply recommendations of IUPAC and approved guideline for Evaluation of Detection Capability for Clinical Laboratory Measurement. According such recommendation, you have to establish LOB (limit of blank) first which permits you establishing of LLOD (lowest limit of detection), then LOD and, finally, LOQ. Moreover, you need ‘k’ and ‘b’ coefficient of your linear regression to calculate LOQ correctly: LOQ=LOD+10σc(|b|⁄k)/ Eventually, double LOQ gives Method Limit (ML) value.

7. The selected peptide EAQLLVIENEVCNHYK bears N-terminal glutamic acid which intends to cyclization favorable at already pH=4; internal glutamine and two asparagine residues, which are readily deamidated even at mild conditions; and internal cysteine residue which is modified during alkylation and assumes complete reaction (alkylation) recovery else fraught with inaccurate quantification. It seems that the peptide is hard to control. Why did the authors choose such ‘uncomfortable’ peptide as the main source for quantification? Why, for example, peptide VILGAHQEVNLESHVQEIEVSR was ignored?

8. The lowest and the highest measured concentrations in assay of ELISA vice the developed LC-SRM seem like outliers (Table 3). If these two points (samples S17 and S20) are eliminated, the corrected R would be more than 0.99. Is it because these measurements are close to limits of detection (upper and lowest) and linearity of LC-SRM and because lower robustness of ELISA (for example, I know that immunoturbidimetry used for Apo A assay is of poor robustness and low accuracy)? Does it mean that the developed LC-SRM is less applicable in clinics compare to ELISA? Does such broad difference (more than 50% in some cases) can be managed in corrective manner to obtain serial results matching stronger between two methods (immunoassay and SRM)?

9. A little more information is essential for samples collected and used for method development, validation and random measurements because Apo A concentration is highly sensitive to fasting before samples collection, smoking before collection, BMI, age and (optional) comorbidities. I do nor require clinical records and history of subjects under consideration, but at least minimal information (as has been touched above) is obligatory to understand possible reason of enormous difference between samples and method utilized (since ELISA is obviously sensitive to deep freezing and thawing because proteins undergo increased denaturation and loss their three-dimensional stability during freezing at low temperatures, which is critically important and may significantly affect the ELISA results. That is why we can occasionally inspect enormous difference between two methods for some instances).

Overall, I liked this paper while reading. It was interesting despite the research seems simple. Results of KIV2 copies calculation are intriguing and discovered lack of correlation with the total concentration of Apo A is fascinating. My last question is only of my interest and does not require and modifications in the main text of the paper: why authors went through the synthesis of recombinant proteins fragment (PrEST) instead of preliminary selection proper peptides and their synthesis with terminal isotope-labeled residues? What is the main advantage of PrEST compared to conventional bioinformatic selection and routine synthesis, which are cheaper and easier to follow?

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Arthur T. Kopylov

**********

[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.

Decision Letter 1

Jon M Jacobs

18 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-14035R1Targeted Proteomics Using Stable Isotope Labeled Protein Fragments Enables Precise and Robust Determination of Total Apolipoprotein(a) in Human PlasmaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miliotis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After consideration again by the reviewers, there still remains additional concerns prior to acceptance of the manuscript.  See comments below.  Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 02 2022 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,

Jon M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Although the authors addressed some of my previous comments and suggestions, I do not think the quality of the article has sufficiently improved yet to be released for publication. Some of my main concerns have not been addressed and I think the current article is still missing some important discussion points:

1. I understand the authors response to my comment on the choice of the comparison ELISA assay for the validation of their LC-MS/MS method although I do not agree. Assessing accuracy means assessing closeness of agreement of the value measured with the new method versus the true value of the analyte in the sample. The true value cannot be measured and only estimated within an error range. Metrology institutes and international instances for method accuracy work worldwide on developing standards, measured with highly precise and highly accurate methods, traceable to the international system of units to determine a value as close as possible to the true value for an analyte so that secondary methods like ELISA can use them as calibrators and be ensured accuracy. The SRM-2B is a very imperfect matrix-based material, a pool of plasma indeed, but it has one advantage: it has an assigned reference value, internationally agreed on and used as a general anchor for most Lp(a) assays worldwide. Using it as a comparison point, although it will not be accuracy in its strictest sense since SRM-2B is not traceable to the SI, is still the best comparison point available for Lp(a).

My suggestion and comments were not this though. SRM-2B is a precious material not easily accessible for studies and could understandably not be used for this research. However, multiple commercial assays for ELISA are directly traceable to SRM-2B, and provide results directly in nmol/L, which is the best solution. The fact that the authors used a benchmark assay for their comparison is not my point. I fully trust the good sense of the researchers to pick an assay performing well. My point was that they should chose an assay traceable to the SRM-2B, the only available international reference for Lp(a), so that they compare their LC-MS/MS method to an ELISA which accuracy has been proven and certified. Comparing to an ELISA without stating its traceability does not provide any information on accuracy, it only provides information that the LC-MS/MS is comparable to this specific ELISA.

Based on the authors response, I seem to understand that the Mercodia ELISA assay they used was verified in some ways against commercial controls. The traceability of this ELISA kit to the SRM-2B, if available, should be mentioned clearly in the main text. If the ELISA used is not traceable to the SRM-2B, this issue should be thoroughly discussed in the main text and the associated limitation regarding claims for accuracy clearly stated. Similarly, the controls used to check this test and their traceability should be mentioned in the main text.

I strongly insist on addressing this concern within the main text. Authors mention they updated this limitation in the main text, I do not see these changes. I think they should mention their benchmark so that they can defend within the main text and to all readers the choice of this ELISA and the reason why they are confident in their assessment of accuracy by comparing their LC-MS/MS to this ELISA specifically.

2. I disagree with the authors’ response regarding the measure of average apo(a) isoform size. I did understand the goal of measuring the total number of KIV-2 circulating in blood and measuring this is, indeed, interesting in some ways. However, what is important about apo(a) isoform size is that it will impact Lp(a) particle size, which will have consequences on its metabolism. What is relevant is therefore the size of the particles circulating, of which apo(a) isoform is only a surrogate measure. Knowing the total average amount of KIV-2 does not provide this information.

The reason I insist is precisely that people tend to get confused on this point, which I think us as researchers are responsible for making clear. I do not question the quality of the method to measure the average apo(a) isoform size but ask that this nuance in terms of clinical usefulness be mentioned in the main text clearly.

Moreover, there do exists a method to assess the distribution of apo(a) isoform size within a sample: gel electrophoresis as mentioned previously by the authors. I was not requesting that the authors run this method on their sample, and I understand it is not feasible for these study samples given small amounts available. However, mentioning the limitation of average apo(a) isoform size vs actual apo(a) isoform size distribution measurement and stating these limitations in the discussion is feasible. There is ample available bibliography on this subject.

3. The authors state in their response that they expanded the discussion to highlight the limitations of this study. I do not see the difference in the revised manuscript. I maintain my comment that the discussion in its current form still lacks substance.

First of all, as mentioned by reviewer 2, the authors do not cite nor discuss work previously published on LC-MS/MS methods to measure apo(a). The mention of previously published methods only appears in the introduction and is quite short and feels very expeditive. I think expending on what the 3 other groups with existing methods have already done, at least in a few sentences, would be a good idea for the introduction. Even though this method is definitely interesting with SIS-PrEST technology and its value-added for quantification, the way the introduction is written sounds like this is the first ever LC-MS/MS method on Lp(a), which it is not.

Overall, my point is: ok the SIS-PrEST approach is an interesting approach, but what is new for Lp(a)? In the end, what is the point of using this method versus another multiplex one developed by Blanchard and colleagues for example who use cheap and easy access SIS peptides, have good accuracy and quick method running in clinical setting already? Why go through the hurdle of using SIS-PrEST? How expensive is the use of SIS-PREST? You mention its potential use in clinical setting, would that be financially robust and feasible? What are the performances of this specific method compared to that of Marcovina and colleagues in terms of reproducibility, turn-around time, precision? What about discussion on the choice of this long peptide, potentially unstable as very interestingly pointed out by reviewer 3? What about digestion completeness and accuracy bias due to different steps? The authors answered to me that SIS-PrEST takes this into account, I think this answer should typically be included in the discussion as it is relevant to the readers too. What about the limitations of this method in terms of practicality in clinical laboratories? I mentioned prices of the SIS-PrEST, what about ease of access? Batch to batch reproducibility and purity? Stability over long period of storage?

In my opinion, all these points should be extensively mentioned and discussed in the article to improve its quality, interest, and general impact to the scientific community.

Minor comments:

1. Page 14 – Figure 3: Where is the discussion regarding the fact that the error range is quite large and that there is significant deviation from unity at low concentrations?

2. Page 16 – Line 2 (discussion): Average isoform size.

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily answered to my initial comments. I than them for their response and hope that their article will meet its readership.

Reviewer #3: The authors satisfied all questions addressed. I have also reviewed data submitted to Panorama (as declared in the ‘Data Availability” statement) and I was satisfied by the presented results concerning signal stability and robustness. In the revised paper the Authors also unfurled the advantage of SIS PrEST approach as I asked them before, and added relevant references. I hope, the Authors would update the review about this technique and achievements in someone future specific paper.

The Authors also made essential amendments in the Supplementary to display accurately the design of SIS PrEST experiment as I claimed before. I also marked more details regarding the comparison of efficiency between ELISA and SRM approaches and comprehensive calculation of the true concentration of calibrants. I have no doubts and specific question regarding the revised version of manuscript. Only minor corrections and amendments are needed. Specifically:

1. ‘SI-units’ abbreviation appeared the first time in page 13 and should be defined;

2. ‘…protein-level spike-ins of standards rather…’: spike-ins’ is probably mistyped and should be ‘spike-in’;

3. ‘Regionala etikprövnignsnämnden’ on page 6: the ‘Etikprövnignsnämnden’ should begin from the capital letter “E” as on page 5;

4. I would suggest to place a part the ‘Results’ section (Peptide ions with a length of 5-25 amino acids and a precursor charge state z = 2,3 and product ion charge state z = 1,2 were screened. Only b- and y-ions were included in the analysis. (33, 34)) in the ‘Material and Methods’ section as a better place.

5. ‘Discussion’ section, page 17: ‘…variance in KIV2 repeats, it was not possible to detect the previously observed negative correlation between number of KIV2 repeats and apo(a) concentrations previously observed (10).’ – I think, one of ‘previously observed’ is redundant.

**********

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: Arthur T. Kopylov

**********

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_2.1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Jon M Jacobs

1 Feb 2023

Targeted Proteomics Using Stable Isotope Labeled Protein Fragments Enables Precise and Robust Determination of Total Apolipoprotein(a) in Human Plasma

PONE-D-22-14035R2

Dear Dr. Miliotis,

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,

Jon M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

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 #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #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 #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 addressed my most important comments. I have only minor comments left:

- Page 4, Line 16: Clarify sentence

- Page 4, Line 20: There is a typo on “proteotypic peptide”

- Page 4, Line20: Remove “Accurate” from “thereby enables accurate measurement of the molar apo(a) levels in plasma.” Accuracy is not related to the choice of the peptide per se.

- Throughout the whole manuscript: Homogenize KIV or K4 abbreviation.

- Page 12, Line 1: There is a typo on “proteotypic peptide”

Reviewer #3: The authors have replied my comments with efforts during two rounds of the hard peer-review. I have no more doubts and more comments. I would agree to publish this paper.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Arthur T. Kopylov

**********

Acceptance letter

Jon M Jacobs

3 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-14035R2

Targeted Proteomics Using Stable Isotope Labeled Protein Fragments Enables Precise and Robust Determination of Total Apolipoprotein(a) in Human Plasma

Dear Dr. Miliotis:

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

Dr Jon M. Jacobs

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 Table. Sequence of SIS PrEST mapping to apo(a).

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. LC gradient used for analysis on Agilent 6490.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. LC gradient used for analysis of 90 plasma samples.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Transitions monitored for analysis of 90 plasma samples.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. Prototypic peptides from the plasminogen domain of apolipoprotein(a).

    (XLSX)

    S1 Data. Reverse standard curves.

    (PDF)

    S1 Graphical abstract

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_2.1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw data files and extracted chromatograms can be accessed at Panorama: https://panoramaweb.org/apoa.url, username: panorama+reviewer42@proteinms.net, password: xWuIHYpN Additionally, all raw files have been uploaded to ProteomeXchange with the data set id PXD026976.

    All raw data files and extracted chromatograms can be accessed at Panorama Public [50]: https://panoramaweb.org/apoa.url. Additionally, all raw files can be accessed through ProteomeXchange (PXD026976) [51].


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES