Table 1 Comparison of proteomic technologies for biomarker discovery in PAH
Feature | LC-MS (Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry) | Olink (Antibody-based proximity extension assay) | SOMAscan (Aptamer-based assay) |
|---|---|---|---|
Technology principle | Mass spectrometry-based, peptide separation and identification | Dual antibody recognition with DNA barcode amplification | Aptamer binding with slow off-rate modified nucleic acids (SOMAmers) |
Detection type | Untargeted & targeted | Targeted | Targeted |
Sensitivity | High (variable for low-abundance proteins) | Very high | Very high for medium/high-abundance proteins; lower for low-abundance proteins compared to Olink. |
Specificity | High | Very high (antibody dependent) | High (aptamer dependent) |
Sample preparation | Complex | Simple | Simple |
Throughput capability | Medium (dozens to hundreds of proteins) | High (dozens to hundreds per panel; up to thousands with multiple panels) | Very high (up to ~ 7000 proteins) |
Reproducibility | Variable (influenced by sample preparation) | High | High |
Cost | High (equipment-intensive) | Moderate to high | High |
Advantages | Accurate quantification, novel protein identification | High sensitivity, specificity, minimal sample use | Broad proteome coverage, very high multiplexing capability |
Limitations | Complexity, lower throughput | Dependent on antibody availability | Dependent on aptamer availability |