Pitfalls in understanding PhIP-Seq data: technical variability, replicability, and best practices for interpretation
Trgovec-Greif, L.; Vogl, T.
Show abstract
Phage Display Immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP-Seq) is a high throughput method allowing to measure antibody binding against hundreds of thousands of potential antigens. Typically, blood samples of hundreds to thousands of individuals are measured in 96-well plates, necessitating distribution of samples on multiple plates and processing in batches. To correctly interpret PhIP-Seq results, it is crucial to understand its nature and technical limitations. Here, we analyzed 195 technical replicates of controls (anchor samples) from 49 plates measured in 13 immunoprecipitation runs to gauge technical variability and replicability. While there were few false-positive enriched peptides, we observed a substantial fraction of false negatives. The total number of enriched peptides can be affected by batch effects. Additionally, the type of biological material used (serum or plasma) influences enrichment profiles with an antigen library containing bacterial proteins due to the interaction of phages with plasma proteins. Finally, replicating measurements in different labs produces comparable enrichment profiles, but slight differences in a subset of peptides are noticeable. These results suggest best practices for PhIP-Seq experiments. Most importantly, due to batch effects, samples of cases and controls should be evenly distributed between 96-well plates to avoid confounding with biological effects. Also, for highly complex libraries, the total number of enriched peptides can be a technical artifact and potentially not a feature useful in comparisons.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A High-throughput Multi-Species Platform Using Biolayer Interferometry Immunosorbent Assay (BLI-ISA) as an Alternative to Indirect ELISA for Vaccine Development 91%
- Performance and validation of an adaptable multiplex assay for detection of serologic response to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination 91%
- Qualification of ELISA and neutralization methodologies to measure SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity using human clinical samples 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid whole-blood finger-stick IgM-IgGCombined Antibody Tests 92%
- Serological profiles of pan-coronavirus-specific responses in COVID-19 patients using a multiplexed electro-chemiluminescence-based testing platform 92%
- Evaluation of Sample Pooling for Screening of SARS-CoV-2 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Reactivity Patterns in Coronavirus Convalescent Plasma Revealed by a Coronavirus Antigen Microarray 92%
- A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in at-home collected finger-prick dried blood spots 92%
- Proteomic blood profiling in mild, severe and critical COVID-19 patients 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Refining Spatial Proteomics by Mass Spectrometry: An Efficient Workflow Tailored for Archival Tissue 89%
- Discovery of optimal cell type classification marker genes from single cell RNA sequencing data 86%
- Optimizing Post-Transplantation Detection of Subcutaneously Transplanted Islets Using Dithizone Staining 85%
"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.