Multiplex Serum Biomarker Assessments: Technical and Biostatistical Issues

University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Journal of Translational Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.93). 10/2011; 9(1):173. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-9-173
Source: PubMed


Identification of predictive and prognostic biomarkers for patients with disease and undergoing different therapeutic options is a very active area of investigation. Many of these studies seek biomarkers among circulating proteins accessed in blood. Many levels of standardization in materials and procedures have been identified which can impact the resulting data.
Here, we have observed unexpected variability in levels of commonly tested analytes in serum which were processed and stored under standardized conditions. We have identified apparent changes in cytokine, chemokine and growth factor levels detected by multiplex Luminex assay in melanoma patient and healthy donor serum samples, over storage time at -80°C. Controls included Luminex kit standards, multiplexed cytokine standards and WHO cytokine controls. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank-sum testing and Spearman's test for correlations.
The interpretation of these changes is confounded by lot-to-lot kit standard curve reagent changes made by a single manufacturer of Luminex kits.
This study identifies previously unknown sources of variation in a commonly used biomarker assay, and suggests additional levels of controls needed for identification of true changes in circulating protein levels.

Download full-text


Available from: John M Kirkwood,
  • Source
    • "As levels of these mediators in body fluids might be unstable upon extended cryopreservation (Butterfield et al., 2011b; Potter et al., 2012), it should be remembered that retrospective measurements of cytokines are highly prone to errors resulting from handling of samples, as also previously emphasized (Whiteside, 2002). To avoid pitfalls due to long-term storage and sample freezing/thawing, cytokine analyses should be performed with fresh, prospectively collected specimens tested in rigorously controlled assays (Butterfield et al., 2011b). However, even prospective monitoring for cytokines may be biased by the fact that current antibody-based assays measure soluble mediators, while those tethered to membranes of microvesicles present in body fluids remain undetected, as recently reported (Szczepanski et al., 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent technical improvements in evaluations of immune cells in situ and immune monitoring of patients with cancer have provided a wealth of new data confirming that immune cells play a key role in human cancer progression. This, in turn, has revived the expectation that immune endpoints might serve as reliable biomarkers of outcome or response to therapy in cancer. The recent successes in linking the T-cell signature in human colorectal carcinoma (CRC) with prognosis have provided a strong motive for searching for additional immune biomarkers that could serve as intermediate endpoints of response to therapy and outcome in human cancers. A number of potentially promising immune biomarkers have emerged, but most remain to be validated. Among them, the B-cell signature, as exemplified by expression of the immunoglobulin G kappa chain (IGKC) in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), has been validated as a biomarker of response to adjuvant therapy and better survival in patients with breast carcinoma and several other types of human solid tumors. Additional immune endpoints are being currently tested as potentially promising biomarkers in cancer. In view of currently growing use of immune cancer therapies, the search for immune biomarkers of prognosis are critically important for identifying patients who would benefit the most from adjuvant immunotherapy.
    Frontiers in Oncology 05/2013; 3:107. DOI:10.3389/fonc.2013.00107
  • Source
    • "Indeed, studies have shown that changes in the candidate biomarker following blood collection can be larger than the expected changes based on the underlying biology. For example, storage can change levels of certain chemokines and cytokines by fivefold or more, time on ice before blood is spun can dramatically alter levels of protein analytes, and the anticoagulant that is used can also change analyte levels [19]. For proteomic studies using plasma or serum, attention to details of sample preparation and storage can also help to reduce variability [20,21]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Substances produced throughout the body are detectable in the blood, which is the most common biological fluid used in clinical testing. Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have long been sought in the blood, but none has become an established or validated diagnostic test. Companion reviews in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy will review specific types of biomarkers or applications; in this overview, we cover key concepts related to AD blood biomarker studies in general. Reasons for the difficulty of detecting markers of a brain-specific disorder, such as AD, in the blood are outlined; these pose conceptual challenges for blood biomarker discovery and development. Applications of blood tests in AD go beyond screening and diagnostic testing; other potential uses are risk assessment, prognostication, and evaluation of treatment target engagement, toxicity, and outcome. Opportunities and questions that may surround these different uses are discussed. A systematic approach to biomarker discovery, detection, assay development and quality control, sample collection, handling and storage, and design and analysis of clinical studies needs to be implemented at every step of discovery and translation to identify an interpretable and useful biomarker.
    Alzheimer's Research and Therapy 03/2013; 5(2):10. DOI:10.1186/alzrt164 · 3.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Finally, just as we were skeptical about the results of the original analyses, we are unwilling to draw conclusions about implications of Fig. 2 in the absence of further studies. We recently undertook studies of the stability of analyte levels over time (Butterfield et al., 2011), but we found that interpretation of the results was confounded by lot-to-lot variation in assay kits. Stability of analyte levels over time is a difficult and important problem, and additional studies are needed to confirm and characterize lack of stability. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reliable prognostic biomarkers of survival and response to treatment are clearly important in oncology, and many studies have been carried out with the objective of identifying new prognostic biomarkers. Retrospective analysis of blood banked from patients is a frequently used paradigm for these studies. We describe a new study of the association of serum biomarker level with overall survival in melanoma patients, and the problems encountered in carrying it out. Blood samples from 56 patients with stage IV metastatic melanoma were drawn prior to initiation of any treatment for their disease. Sera from the samples were stored for up to 94 months at -80°C, and were subsequently thawed at the same time and tested by multiplex Luminex assay for 30 analytes (cytokines, chemokines and growth factors). Cox regression analysis was used to assess the association between these analytes and time-to-death. Of the 30 analytes, 17 were associated with survival, most strongly so, and in all cases, a higher analyte level was associated with increased survival. In addition, the correlations of the levels of all possible pairs of analytes were all positive and in almost all cases highly significant. However, these results are artifacts that arise from the combination of two peculiarities of the data: the apparent decrease in analyte level with storage time, and the uniformly shorter storage times of the samples from censored patients than the storage times of the samples from patients who died. All retrospective studies can have hidden biases, and thus investigators should not claim new findings before examining the data in detail with the goal of determining whether the findings could be spurious. There were several suspicious findings in our initial analyses: too many analytes found significant, too many very small p-values, a uniformly positive association of analyte level with survival, and a uniformly positive correlation between analyte levels. We were convinced that these findings must be artifacts, and further analyses showed that the findings could be explained by an apparent decrease of analyte level storage time.
    Journal of immunological methods 12/2011; 376(1-2):108-12. DOI:10.1016/j.jim.2011.12.003 · 1.82 Impact Factor
Show more