Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Nature Research, Nature, 2023

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06563-x

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Large-scale plasma proteomics comparisons through genetics and disease associations

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractHigh-throughput proteomics platforms measuring thousands of proteins in plasma combined with genomic and phenotypic information have the power to bridge the gap between the genome and diseases. Here we performed association studies of Olink Explore 3072 data generated by the UK Biobank Pharma Proteomics Project1 on plasma samples from more than 50,000 UK Biobank participants with phenotypic and genotypic data, stratifying on British or Irish, African and South Asian ancestries. We compared the results with those of a SomaScan v4 study on plasma from 36,000 Icelandic people2, for 1,514 of whom Olink data were also available. We found modest correlation between the two platforms. Although cis protein quantitative trait loci were detected for a similar absolute number of assays on the two platforms (2,101 on Olink versus 2,120 on SomaScan), the proportion of assays with such supporting evidence for assay performance was higher on the Olink platform (72% versus 43%). A considerable number of proteins had genomic associations that differed between the platforms. We provide examples where differences between platforms may influence conclusions drawn from the integration of protein levels with the study of diseases. We demonstrate how leveraging the diverse ancestries of participants in the UK Biobank helps to detect novel associations and refine genomic location. Our results show the value of the information provided by the two most commonly used high-throughput proteomics platforms and demonstrate the differences between them that at times provides useful complementarity.