Back

Epitope Effect Prevalence in Affinity-based pQTL studies

Kuliesius, J.; Badonyi, M.; Navarro, P.; Marsh, J. A.; Klaric, L.; Wilson, J. F.

2025-06-24 genomics
10.1101/2025.06.20.660695 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Affinity-based proteomics platforms Olink and SomaScan have enabled population-wide human proteogenomic studies, linking genetic variants to protein abundances. However, sequence alterations in the binding site of the detection reagent may introduce platform-specific measurement bias unrelated to protein levels, referred to as the epitope effect. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of epitope effects using cis protein quantitative trait loci (pQTL) discovered in three of the largest proteogenomic studies: UK Biobank, deCODE, and Fenland. Across 5,817 protein targets assayed in these studies, cis-pQTL were identified for 914 proteins by both platforms, 301 (33%) of which were linked to a missense variant. We identified 37 proteins with opposing effect directions in two platforms for the same missense pQTL, and 85 proteins where a missense pQTL was significant in only one platform. We present examples where such discrepancies reflect differences in isoform or proteoform targeting, as well as examples where the discordance appears to result from true platform-specific detection bias. Further structural analyses reveal that missense cis-pQTL are more likely to be detected when they alter residues located on accessible protein surfaces - regions most likely to interfere with reagent binding in affinity-based assays. Overall, our findings suggest that missense-mediated epitope effects influence only a minority (12% or less) of cis-pQTL results. We also highlight the need for detailed assay annotations and structural context to improve result interpretation in proteogenomic studies.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.