Investigates a data reduction workflow for proteoform diagnostics in clinical settings, suggesting improved processes for precision medicine.
Objectives Proteoforms affect biological and clinical processes and are anticipated to play a major role in establishing precision medicine. However, mass spectrometry-based proteoform tests generate complex data which needs to be processed thoroughly prior to reporting to clinical chemists and clinicians. We developed a workflow for handling (clinical) data, based on our in-house developed test for the molecular characterization of antithrombin proteoforms by LC-MRM-MS, which serves as a proof-of-concept for laboratories aiming to develop MS-based proteoform tests. Methods Using previously collected study data investigating the diagnostic value of an MS-based antithrombin proteoform test, a workflow was developed based on three layers. Quantitative information assessed deficiencies, qualitative information assessed mutations or PTMs, and a last confirmatory step verified mutations. All steps were (semi-)automated by a custom R script. Results The workflow comprised of quantitation through verification of a quantifying peptide and interpretation to previously established reference intervals. Qualitative information was based on the ratio between qualitative peptides and the established concentration, for which deviations >20 % indicated the presence of variant proteoforms, subsequently confirmed by variant peptide transitions. The R script analyzed and condensed the data per sample to a bi-level diagnosis report providing concentration and molecular proteoforms for easy integration in a LIS. Conclusions MS-based proteoform analysis is a feasible and robust application for the clinical laboratory when combined with automated data analysis and we here provide guidance for establishing such analyses. MS-based proteoform tests will aid the transition to personalized medicine, placing the clinical chemist at the forefront of precision diagnostics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kruijt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: