Public Health: Add mass spectrometry to the pandemic toolbox

A new protocol step improves robustness and ease-of-use for mass spectrometry in the clinic, opening the door to mass deployment to monitor infectious agents.
  1. Bart Van Puyvelde
  2. Maarten Dhaenens  Is a corresponding author
  1. Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Ghent University, Belgium
  2. ProGenTomics, Belgium

Widespread testing has become a cornerstone of the response against the COVID-19 pandemic. So far, this has almost exclusively been done by detecting the genetic information of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (its mRNA) using tests such as RT-PCR. This approach is efficient, relatively simple and acceptably cheap. However, only relying on one type of technology can lead to supply shortages, and it makes it difficult to assess how well the method fares in terms of sensitivity, false positives and false negatives (Woolston, 2021). Additionally, while RT-PCR tests can assess whether someone is carrying the virus, they cannot reveal how many viral particles someone is releasing into the environment, how infectious a person is, or how a patient will fare. The pandemic ‘readiness toolbox’ must therefore be extended to include methods that can detect other types of biomolecules beyond mRNA, such as viral proteins and peptides (Evans et al., 2021).

Mass spectrometry, an approach that helps to assess which compounds are present in a sample, is an obvious choice. Rather than detecting a precise target (like RT-PCR assays do with mRNA), this intrinsically versatile method measures the physical properties of any and many biomolecules, including peptides derived from proteins. Mass spectrometry can therefore monitor a practically limitless number of molecules, making it a sustainable analytical technique. In fact, an instrument calibrated to quantify certain disease-related proteins in plasma, for example, can start measuring peptides derived from a new pathogen in next to no time (Grossegesse et al., 2020; Van Puyvelde et al., 2021).

However, despite the high-level sensitivity and accuracy of mass spectrometry, clinical settings often rely on other techniques to analyze proteins, as extensive expertise is believed to be needed both to handle the instrument and to interpret the data. Most of these concerns are due the additional, meaningless data from all the other proteins and molecules in the sample (‘the noise’), which complicate the detection of the peptides of interest (the actual signal). Indeed, like any other analytical technique, mass spectrometry measures the signal-to-noise ratio, but the instruments cannot automatically reduce the noise from this equation. This has made mass spectrometry a frightening prospect for clinical implementation, reducing instrumental robustness and complicating data interpretation. In response, scientists usually strive to improve the signal-to-noise ratio by increasing the signal. Now, in eLife, Fredrik Edfors and colleagues at institutions in Sweden and Canada – including Andreas Hober as first author – report having tweaked how to prepare a mass spectrometry sample to prevent background noise from emerging instead (Hober et al., 2021).

The team added a new step in the protocol, called peptide immuno-enrichment, which involves attaching antibodies to magnetic beads to ‘fish’ the target peptides directly out of the patient samples before analysis (Razavi et al., 2016; Anderson et al., 2004). This multiplies the sensitivity many-fold and reduces measurement time, interferences and instrument contamination while also increasing robustness (as also proposed in Van Puyvelde et al., 2021). Additionally, without the noise, mass spectrometry can determine the amount of a given target protein extremely accurately, something that is not possible using RT-PCR (Evans et al., 2021).

In other words, Hober et al. have set the stage for applying mass spectrometry to accurately quantify SARS-CoV-2 peptides in a variety of patient samples. With this approach, each instrument could process samples from 500 patients in a single day. In fact, with peptide immuno-enrichment already used to assess a panel of inflammation proteins in plasma in the clinic, adding an antibody bead targeting a peptide derived from a pathogen does not change the overall workflow (Anderson et al., 2020). The complete sample preparation protocol with peptide immuno-enrichment could be done for less than 40€ per sample, in less than three hours of automatable sample preparation and without requiring any mass spectroscopy expertise to interpret the data. Beyond this versatility, another important characteristic of the approach proposed by Hober et al. is that the ‘fishing’ of the target peptides theoretically means that patient samples could be pooled and analysed together. As suggested for RT-PCR (Verwilt et al., 2020), this strategy would increase throughput and save resources.

Taken together, these features provide an opportunity to develop an early warning test that targets a dozen respiratory pathogens in pools of up to 32 patient samples, with each machine being able to run 500 pooled samples – totaling up to 16,000 individuals a day. Doing this throughout the year would help to monitor how a pathogen spreads through a population over time. In fact, if several pathogens start to pass through a population simultaneously, other mass spectrometry instruments can easily be set up to detect these infectious agents in parallel in unpooled samples (up to 500 patients a day per instrument).

The question then becomes: should we now start using mass spectrometry instead of RT-PCR in the present COVID-19 pandemic? Currently, precisely assessing the amount of viral proteins may not help to decide whether a person should be quarantined. However, this information may help to decide when an individual should be released into the community as viral protein might more closely track infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 than viral mRNA, which remains detectable after a patient ceases to be infectious (Evans et al., 2021). Irrespectively, starting to measure viral protein loads in thousands of COVID-19 patients using mass spectrometry could help the technique to mature into a reliable approach to add to the pandemic readiness toolbox; in this effort, the work by Hober et al. will help revolutionize the way mass spectrometry is approached in the clinic.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Bart Van Puyvelde

    Bart Van Puyvelde is in the Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Ghent University and ProGenTomics, Ghent, Belgium

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7368-1762
  2. Maarten Dhaenens

    Maarten Dhaenens is in the Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Ghent University and ProGenTomics, Ghent, Belgium

    For correspondence
    maarten.dhaenens@ugent.be
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9801-3509

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: December 10, 2021 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2021, Van Puyvelde and Dhaenens

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 826
    Page views
  • 48
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Bart Van Puyvelde
  2. Maarten Dhaenens
(2021)
Public Health: Add mass spectrometry to the pandemic toolbox
eLife 10:e75471.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75471

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Sharon A McGrath-Morrow, Jarrett Venezia ... Alan L Scott
    Research Article

    Bacterial pneumonia in neonates can cause significant morbidity and mortality when compared to other childhood age groups. To understand the immune mechanisms that underlie these age-related differences, we employed a mouse model of E. coli pneumonia to determine the dynamic cellular and molecular differences in immune responsiveness between neonates (PND 3-5) and juveniles (PND 12-18), at 24, 48, and 72 hours. Cytokine gene expression from whole lung extracts was also quantified at these time points, using qRT-PCR. E. coli challenge resulted in rapid and significant increases in neutrophils, monocytes, and γδT cells, along with significant decreases in dendritic cells and alveolar macrophages in the lungs of both neonates and juveniles. E. coli challenged juvenile lung had significant increases in interstitial macrophages and recruited monocytes that were not observed in neonatal lungs. Expression of IFNg-responsive genes was positively correlated with the levels and dynamics of MHCII-expressing innate cells in neonatal and juvenile lungs. Several facets of immune responsiveness in the wild-type neonates were recapitulated in juvenile MHCII-/- juveniles. Employing a pre-clinical model of E. coli pneumonia, we identified significant differences in the early cellular and molecular dynamics in the lungs that likely contribute to the elevated susceptibility of neonates to bacterial pneumonia and could represent targets for intervention to improve respiratory outcomes and survivability of neonates.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    Yu Li, Pablo Guaman Tipan ... Lauren IR Ehrlich
    Research Article

    Central tolerance ensures autoreactive T cells are eliminated or diverted to the regulatory T cell lineage, thus preventing autoimmunity. To undergo central tolerance, thymocytes must enter the medulla to test their TCRs for autoreactivity against the diverse self-antigens displayed by antigen presenting cells (APCs). While CCR7 is known to promote thymocyte medullary entry and negative selection, our previous studies implicate CCR4 in these processes, raising the question of whether CCR4 and CCR7 play distinct or redundant roles in central tolerance. Here, synchronized positive selection assays, 2-photon timelapse microscopy, and quantification of TCR-signaled apoptotic thymocytes, demonstrate that CCR4 and CCR7 promote medullary accumulation and central tolerance of distinct post-positive selection thymocyte subsets in mice. CCR4 is upregulated within hours of positive selection signaling and promotes medullary entry and clonal deletion of immature post-positive selection thymocytes. In contrast, CCR7 is expressed several days later and is required for medullary localization and negative selection of mature thymocytes. In addition, CCR4 and CCR7 differentially enforce self-tolerance, with CCR4 enforcing tolerance to self-antigens presented by activated APCs, which express CCR4 ligands. Our findings show that CCR7 expression is not synonymous with medullary localization and support a revised model of central tolerance in which CCR4 and CCR7 promote early and late stages of negative selection, respectively, via interactions with distinct APC subsets.