Subtyping strokes using blood-based biomarkers: A proteomics approach

Study population and study design

This diagnostic test study was conducted in the Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India in collaboration with Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB), New Delhi, India. From October 2017 to March 2020, we included consecutive stroke patients aged 18 years and above, ischemic or hemorrhagic confirmed by neuroimaging and clinical diagnosis admitted within 24 hours of symptom onset to the neurology wards and/or emergency department of AIIMS, New Delhi. All included patients had clinical signs consistent with the definition of stroke given by the American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA).¹¹ We also included a group of stroke mimics presenting within 24 hours with stroke-like symptoms. We excluded patients with a previous history of stroke, admission after the 24-hour onset of the qualifying event, cerebral vein thrombosis, chronic liver and/or kidney disease, documented history of cancer, pregnancy, and unwilling to provide written informed consent.

The study was approved by the Local Institutional Ethics Committee of AIIMS, New Delhi (Ref. No. IECPG-395/28.09.2017). We obtained written informed consent from all the recruited patients or legally authorized representative prior to collecting blood samples and clinical history. The study was divided into two phases: (1) discovery phase and (2) validation phase. The study flow diagram is represented in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Study flow diagram

Sample size

For the discovery phase, based on the feasibility, budget, and time-frame of the study, we selected 40 stroke patients comprising of 20 IS and 20 ICH. The literature suggests a sample size of 10 to 30 for conducting a pilot/discovery phase study.^12,13

For the validation phase, to achieve a sensitivity and specificity of 90% with 5% margin of error and 5% drop out rate, we estimated a final sample size of 300 comprising 150 IS and 150 ICH patients¹⁴ using STATA version 13.0 software.

Blood sample collection

We collected five ml of peripheral blood samples in serum vacutainer tubes from stroke patients and mimics within 24-hour onset. For serum collection, it was left standing at room temperature for 30 minutes until clotted. It was then centrifuged at 3000g for 10 minutes, after which the serum was separated into cryovials. Five aliquots of each sample (100µl) were prepared and stored at -80°C until further analysis.

Sample preparation, Reduction, alkylation, and trypsin digestion

Refer to previously published paper.¹⁵

DISCOVERY PHASE

Peptide selection for Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM)-based targeted proteomics

Peptide selection was performed using search results from ProteinPilot,¹⁸ PeptideAtlas¹⁹ or in-silico generated peptides of proteins using Expasy PeptideCutter tool.²⁰ Peptides with +2 and +3 charges were considered for MRM and for each peptide, 5-6 fragment ions were used for identification. Peptide selection for the list of shortlisted proteins is given in supplementary Table 1.

MRM data acquisition

Tryptic peptides obtained after digestion were desalted using reversed-phase Oasis HLB cartridges (Waters, Milford, MA) as per manufacturer’s protocol. The peptide mixture was dried using a vacuum centrifuge, and the peptides were resuspended in 0.1% formic acid at a final concentration of 1μg/μl. A heavy labeled peptide for Apo A1 (QGLLPVLESFK; K=Lysine-13C6,15N2) protein was spiked-in the resolubilized plasma digest at a final concentration of 1ng/μl.

The targeted MRM-MS²¹ analysis of the tryptic peptides was performed on a TSQ Altis (Thermo Fisher, San Jose, CA). The instrument was equipped with an H-ESI ion source. A spray voltage of 3.5 keV was used with a heated ion transfer tube set at a temperature of 325°C. Chromatographic separations of peptides were performed on Vanquish UHPLC system (Thermo Fisher, San Jose, CA).

Ten μl sample was injected and peptides were loaded on an ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (130Å, 1.7 µm, 2.1 mm X 100 mm, Waters) from a cooled (4°C) autosampler and separated with a linear gradient of water (buffer A) and acetonitrile (buffer B), containing 0.1% formic acid, at a flow rate of 300µl/minute in 30 minutes gradient run.

Statistical analysis

Skyline version 21.1 was used to analyze the MRM data.²² The area for each peptide was spike-in normalized using a heavy labeled peptide for Apo A1 protein and then log² transformed. The random forest-based imputation was performed for peptides with <10% missing values.²³ The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test.

The results of our study were reported as per the Standard for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines.²⁴ For each comparison, IS was taken as the endpoint and univariable logistic regression analysis was conducted using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed for biomarkers differentiating IS from ICH and stroke mimics. The optimal cut-off points were determined using the Youden Index. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each biomarker were determined. Since the aim of this study was to detect and diagnose IS, cut-offs for each biomarker were selected having the highest sensitivity values to detect IS and to rule out ICH or mimics with the best available specificity values.

Prediction models were developed to determine the accuracy and precision of protein biomarkers and their discrimination ability was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC)/c-statistic. The clinical variables with p-value <0.1 in the univariable analysis along with demographic variables like age and sex, were included in a backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis. Afterward, biomarkers were added incrementally to this model. Those biomarkers that contributed to at least a 1% increase in the AUC/c-statistic were retained in the model. Another prediction model was developed to determine the diagnostic potential of biomarkers alone in differentiating IS. For each prediction model, the degree of multicollinearity was tested using the variance inflation factor (VIF) and predictors with VIF value >2.5 were removed from the final model. The discrimination ability (AUC) between various prediction models was compared and quantitatively assessed using the Hanley-McNeil test p-value.²⁵ At different pre-test probabilities of the disease, the corresponding post-test probability, and the multi-level likelihood ratio were determined. The integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) index was calculated to assess the added value of the biomarkers to the clinical predictive models.^26,27 The goodness-of-fit between the two hierarchical prediction models was evaluated using the Likelihood Ratio (LR) test based on the ratio of their likelihoods.²⁸ The selection of the best prediction model was done using Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC)²⁹ and Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC).³⁰ The statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2 and STATA version 13.1.

Data availability

The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE³¹ partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD032917.

Results from the Discovery Phase

We enrolled 40 patients in the discovery phase: 20 IS and 20 ICH patients recruited within 24 hours. Between IS and ICH cases, there was no significant difference in the mean age (p=0.12) and mean blood sampling time from symptom onset (p=0.86). The baseline characteristics of the patients are given in supplementary Table 2.

Serum proteomic profiles were compared between 20 IS and 20 ICH cases using the SWATH-MS approach. We quantified 375 proteins at 1% peptide FDR between IS and ICH. The total ion chromatogram and the PCA plots depicting batch variations are given in supplementary figure 1 and supplementary figure 2.

We identified 14 differentially expressed proteins using the fold change and p-value criteria. Three proteins were upregulated, while 11 were downregulated in IS compared to ICH (Figure 2a). We further identified 11 confirmed/tentative features between IS and ICH using the Boruta random forest method (Figure 2b and supplementary Table 3). Five proteins (UniProt IDs: P01023, P01833, P01764, P19652, and P02654) were common using both protein selection criteria. Therefore, after combining the distinctly expressed proteins using both criteria, 20 differentially expressed proteins were identified between IS and ICH within 24 hours (Table 1). A heatmap of these 20 proteins is depicted in Figure 2c.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2a:

Volcano plot depicting the log² fold change on the x-axis and -log¹⁰ p-value on the y-axis for the upregulated and downregulated proteins in 20 IS cases compared to 20 ICH cases within 24 hours. Figure 2b: Feature selection using the Boruta random forest between 20 IS and 20 ICH cases within 24 hours. Figure 2c: Heatmap showing the distribution and expression pattern of 20 significantly differentially expressed proteins between IS and ICH. Figure 2d: Protein-protein interaction network analysis of differentially expressed proteins between IS and ICH using the Cytoscape software. The colour of nodes and edges represents the degree of interaction and interaction score.

Interaction network analysis observed that 15 proteins formed a highly connected network showing molecular interactions with other proteins (Figure 2d). APOH had the highest degree of interaction with other proteins followed by APOA1, A2M, and HP. In our network, 10 protein-protein interactions had an interaction score of >0.90. Functional enrichment analysis identified molecular pathways/processes involving blood microparticles, extracellular space, lipoprotein particles, cholesterol metabolism, platelet degranulation, and post translational protein phosphorylation that were significantly different between IS and ICH (supplementary Table 4).

Results from the Validation Phase

We included 306 cases in the validation phase; 300 stroke patients (150 IS and 150 ICH) and 6 stroke mimics within 24 hours. The mean age of IS, ICH, and stroke mimics were 54.59±15.54, 55.30±12.72, and 47.83±18.25 years, respectively. IS, ICH, and stroke mimics consisted of 64.67%, 65.33%, and 66.67% males. The mean blood sampling time (in hours) from symptom onset was 15.29±5.55 in IS, 14.97±6.55 in ICH, and 8.75±5.07 in stroke mimics. The 6 stroke mimics included patients suffering from hypoglycaemia (2), vertigo (2), syncope (1), and seizure (1) (supplementary Table 5 and supplementary Table 6).

We validated 20 differentially expressed proteins identified in the discovery phase and five proteins (GFAP, BNP, D-dimer, MMP-9, and UCH-L1) identified in our published meta-analysis.⁹ While selecting the peptides of interest for MRM, unique peptides for two proteins (UniProt IDs: P01764 and P01601) could not be determined, while the unique peptide (TDISMSDFENSR) for PIGR protein (UniProt ID: P01833) was not detectable in any sample, thus they were excluded from the final analysis. Therefore, 22 proteins (17 from discovery phase and five from meta-analysis) were selected in our validation phase. One unique peptide per protein was used for quantification. The final list of unique peptides and quantifier fragment ion for each protein is given in supplementary Table 7.

Univariable analysis in the Validation Phase

In the univariable analysis, the protein concentration of 15 out of 22 biomarkers were different between IS and ICH (p-value <0.1) (supplementary Table 8). The diagnostic characteristics for the 15 categorized biomarkers are given in Table 2. In a subgroup analysis conducted within 6 hours, nine of 22 biomarkers significantly differentiated 12 IS from 26 ICH cases (supplementary Table 9 and supplementary Table 10). In a secondary analysis, only three biomarkers differentiated IS from stroke mimics within 24 hours (supplementary Table 11).

Multivariable regression analysis in the validation phase

Comparing the diagnostic performance of prediction models

We compared the ROC curves of three prediction models using the Hanley and McNeil test. We observed that the combined model had significantly higher AUC compared to biomarker model (p=0.036) and clinical model (p<0.0001) (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

A comparison between the ROC curves of Clinical prediction model (blue curve), Biomarker prediction model (red curve), and Combined prediction model (green curve) to differentiate IS from ICH within 24 hours.

The IDI index suggested that combined model increased the discrimination ability by 13% (p<0.001) compared to biomarker model and by 26% (p<0.001) compared to clinical model.

The goodness-of-fit between the clinical and combined models (hierarchical models) was compared using the likelihood ratio test. The addition of three protein biomarkers (GFAP, MMP-9, and APO-C1) to the clinical variables significantly increased the likelihood ratio by 102.74 (p<0.001). Further, combined model including clinical and biomarker variables, had the least AIC and BIC values than clinical model.

Discussion

In the discovery phase, our study identified 20 differentially expressed proteins between IS and ICH. Of these 20 proteins, in the validation phase, we identified three biomarkers (GFAP, MMP9, APOC1) that independently differentiated IS from ICH in multivariable analyses. When these three biomarkers were added to the prediction models containing clinical variables, they significantly improved the discrimination ability to detect IS. GFAP and MMP9 further differentiated the two stroke subtypes in a subgroup analysis within 6 hours. In a secondary analysis, we identified three biomarkers (APO-L1, BNP, FBXW5) that differentiated IS from stroke mimics. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that has utilized the discovery-based label-free SWATH-MS proteomics and targeted MRM proteomics to identify and validate differentially expressed protein biomarkers in the blood of patients with IS and ICH within 24 hours of symptom onset.

Our findings highlight the importance of a panel-based approach in diagnostic biomarker research in stroke. Our study observed that a combined panel of biomarkers and clinical variables detected IS from ICH with an accuracy of 92%. Only a few studies in the past have adopted the panel-based approach. The Stroke-Chip study in 2017³² included a panel of clinical variables and biomarkers in which only NT-proBNP independently differentiated IS from ICH with an accuracy of 75.7%. Earlier, Montaner et al. in 2012³³ observed that in a combined panel, S100B and RAGE independently differentiated IS from ICH with an improved accuracy of 84%. Thus, future studies must focus on testing the diagnostic potential of their biomarkers in multivariable prediction models to identify independent biomarkers for IS diagnosis.

For the first time our study used a label-free proteomics approach to detect the levels of proteins identified in the literature such as GFAP, MMP9, BNP, D-dimer, and UCH-L1 in stroke patients. We focussed on finding a combination of biomarkers with/without clinical variables which can detect IS with high sensitivity and a high NPV to rule out ICH. The poor specificity values observed in most of the biomarkers when analyzed alone, were improved significantly when combined in a panel.

Our network analysis identified an interaction network of 15 proteins that was highly connected. The most common significant pathways underlying the proteins differentiating IS from ICH included cholesterol metabolism and lipid-related processes, platelet degranulation, and pathways related to extracellular space and matrix.

Thus far, no proteomics study conducted in stroke has identified biomarkers within the 24-hour time window. In a recent study, Malicek et al. 2021³⁴ used a similar discovery-based label-free proteomics approach and identified nine proteins in a small sample of 3 IS and 4 ICH patients. They collected blood samples between 1 to 15 days and lacked a validation phase. Of these nine proteins, serum amyloid P-component was also differentially expressed in our discover phase. Another study by Zhang et al. 2021³⁵ collected serum within five days and identified two metabolic biomarkers between IS and ICH using targeted metabolomics. Lopez et al. (2012)³⁶ used targeted proteomics and identified a combination of APO-CIII and APO-AI that differentiated IS from ICH with an AUC of 0.92. In our discovery phase, we also observed that APO-AI was significantly downregulated in IS by 0.61-fold compared to ICH.

Several studies in the past have used immunoassays to identify candidate protein biomarkers for differentiating IS from ICH. GFAP is the most extensively studied protein and several systematic reviews and meta-analyses,^37–40 including those published by our group^8,9,41 also reiterate our findings that GFAP efficiently differentiates the two stroke subtypes with high sensitivity and/or specificity within 24 as well as 6 hours. With regards to MMP9, our findings are in line with several other published studies^33,42–44 and meta-analysis,⁹ that observed that MMP-9 has significantly lower levels in IS than ICH and efficiently differentiates the two stroke subtypes within 24 hours.

Previous studies have had contradictory results regarding the APO-C1 levels in IS and ICH patients. In our study, we detected higher levels of APO-C1 in IS than ICH. The increased levels of APO-C1 during acute IS might be related to its key role in lipid metabolism, also observed in the pathway analysis in our study. One study by Allard et al. (2004)⁴⁵ corroborates our findings as they observed higher levels of APO-C1 in IS than ICH. However, a study by Walsh et al. (2016)⁴⁶ observed that in a small sample of 14 IS and 23 ICH cases, the median APO-CI levels were slightly lower in IS compared to ICH. Therefore, more adequately powered studies are required to confirm the levels of APO-C1 in stroke subtypes.

Strengths of our study

This study provides crucial insights into the pathophysiology of IS and ICH in acute stages. We validated the diagnostic potential of discovered biomarkers in a large cohort of patients using a high-throughput proteomics approach. Our study was conducted in resource-limited settings wherein there is an urgent need for an alternative approach toward rapid stroke diagnosis. Our study analyzed the individual protein profile of each patient using proteomics in both discovery and validation phases without pooling any sample. Since, pooled samples do not reflect the diseased/non-diseased condition of a single person and may produce false-positive or false-negative results.

Limitations of the study

Certain inherent limitations associated with our study must be kept in mind when interpreting its results. Firstly, the serum samples were obtained only from the Indian population; thus, further studies conducted in ethnically diverse populations are required to validate the generalizability of the biomarkers identified in our study. Secondly, relative quantification of proteins was done in the validation phase. To determine the biomarker levels with absolute quantification, future studies must be conducted on these biomarkers using either labelled peptide-based targeted proteomics or standard immunoassays. Lastly, the number of stroke mimics included in this study were very less, therefore, findings were only exploratory.

Future directions

The literature on proteomics studies for diagnostic biomarkers in stroke is mainly limited to the discovery phase, while the validation phase is lacking. Therefore, studies must look to validate their discovered biomarkers in a large independent cohort using either standard immunoassays or targeted proteomics approaches using MRM. Since stroke is a multifactorial disorder, a single biomarker approach might not be appropriate, and instead studies must look for a panel of biomarkers that may increase the overall sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis. The ability of the biomarkers to independently diagnose IS must be evaluated in multivariable regression models consisting of potential clinical predictors along with independent protein biomarkers. Studies should also examine the improvement in the discrimination ability and the incremental value of any biomarker over clinical variables using various statistical approaches. Future studies should utilize the advanced label-free proteomics technology for biomarker research in stroke. They require a minimal sample volume at a low cost per sample. This approach would be convenient for studies investigating a panel of biomarkers. Studies must avoid pooling of samples when conducting their proteomics experiments to avoid false positive/false negative results.

Conclusion

Our study identified 20 differentially expressed proteins between IS and ICH in the discovery phase using SWATH-MS proteomics with a strong interaction network for 15 proteins. The validation phase highlighted the potential of 15 biomarker candidates in differentiating IS from ICH within 24 hours. The prediction model including three protein biomarkers (GFAP, MMP9, and APOC1) and clinical variables, had the best discrimination ability and increased the post-test probability of detecting IS with high sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Protein biomarkers along with clinical predictors significantly improved the discrimination ability of the model in differentiating IS from ICH within 24 hours. Our results must be validated in other populations using absolute quantification to confirm the generalizability of our findings and the diagnostic performance of the identified biomarkers.

Contributors

DV conceptualized the idea of this research topic, helped design the clinical methodology, supervised each step of execution of this study. SM primarily conducted each step of this study ranging from blood sample collection, processing, proteomics experimentation, statistical and proteomic data analysis, results interpretation, and manuscript writing. SSG supervised the proteomics experimentation and its data analysis. SM and PS conducted the proteomics experiments and data analysis. MK, ZR, DB, and RC contributed in conducting the proteomics experimentations in the study. PT and MN contributed in patient sample collection and processing. PK and AK helped in statistical data analysis. DV, PA, AKS, AKP, DM, and KP aided in patient recruitment for this study. All authors contributed to, reviewed, and approved the final draft of the paper.

Disclosures

The authors report no disclosures relevant to the manuscript.