IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v16y2025i1d10.1038_s41467-025-56935-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative studies of 2168 plasma proteins measured by two affinity-based platforms in 4000 Chinese adults

Author

Listed:
  • Baihan Wang

    (University of Oxford)

  • Alfred Pozarickij

    (University of Oxford)

  • Mohsen Mazidi

    (University of Oxford)

  • Neil Wright

    (University of Oxford)

  • Pang Yao

    (University of Oxford)

  • Saredo Said

    (University of Oxford)

  • Andri Iona

    (University of Oxford)

  • Christiana Kartsonaki

    (University of Oxford)

  • Hannah Fry

    (University of Oxford)

  • Kuang Lin

    (University of Oxford)

  • Yiping Chen

    (University of Oxford)

  • Huaidong Du

    (University of Oxford)

  • Daniel Avery

    (University of Oxford)

  • Dan Schmidt-Valle

    (University of Oxford)

  • Canqing Yu

    (Peking University
    Peking University Center for Public Health and Epidemic Preparedness and Response
    Ministry of Education)

  • Dianjianyi Sun

    (Peking University
    Peking University Center for Public Health and Epidemic Preparedness and Response
    Ministry of Education)

  • Jun Lv

    (Peking University
    Peking University Center for Public Health and Epidemic Preparedness and Response
    Ministry of Education)

  • Michael Hill

    (University of Oxford)

  • Liming Li

    (Peking University
    Peking University Center for Public Health and Epidemic Preparedness and Response
    Ministry of Education)

  • Derrick A. Bennett

    (University of Oxford)

  • Rory Collins

    (University of Oxford)

  • Robin G. Walters

    (University of Oxford)

  • Robert Clarke

    (University of Oxford)

  • Iona Y. Millwood

    (University of Oxford)

  • Zhengming Chen

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

Proteomics offers unique insights into human biology and drug development, but few studies have directly compared the utility of different proteomics platforms. We measured plasma levels of 2168 proteins in 3976 Chinese adults using both Olink Explore and SomaScan platforms. The correlation of protein levels between platforms was modest (median rho = 0.29), with protein abundance and data quality parameters being key factors influencing correlation. For 1694 proteins with one-to-one matched reagents, 765 Olink and 513 SomaScan proteins had cis-pQTLs, including 400 with colocalising cis-pQTLs. Moreover, 1096 Olink and 1429 SomaScan proteins were associated with BMI, while 279 and 154 proteins were associated with risk of ischaemic heart disease, respectively. Addition of Olink and SomaScan proteins to conventional risk factors for ischaemic heart disease improved C-statistics from 0.845 to 0.862 (NRI: 12.2%) and 0.863 (NRI: 16.4%), respectively. These results demonstrate the utility of these platforms and could inform the design and interpretation of future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Baihan Wang & Alfred Pozarickij & Mohsen Mazidi & Neil Wright & Pang Yao & Saredo Said & Andri Iona & Christiana Kartsonaki & Hannah Fry & Kuang Lin & Yiping Chen & Huaidong Du & Daniel Avery & Dan Sc, 2025. "Comparative studies of 2168 plasma proteins measured by two affinity-based platforms in 4000 Chinese adults," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-56935-2
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56935-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56935-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-025-56935-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-56935-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.