Preprint compares 7 plasma proteomics methods - and doesn't get a single good correlation!

Title is overstated, I guess, there are some "strong correlations" but not the ones I really care about. SomaScan 11k vs 7k get a strong. Same with O-link 5k vs 3k. Olink 3k vs SureQuant gets a barely, but technically strong. I'm still weirded out by this preprint though. 

Huge shoutout to Cliff for bringing this preprint to my attention. Now -- I'm all hopped up on DayQuil, but Figure 2B has caused me to both laugh and have chills of terror (or DayQuil). 

Before I get too far into what I think will be every plasma proteomics person's favorite preprint of 2025 - this is where you find it. 

For a reminder - this is a general breakdown of what Spearman Rho's are - 

(Stolen from this place) 

The methods section in the paper is really well written. This little company has access to lots of plasma and they sent some to the amazing Biognosys facility and they sent some to SEER and they did O-link 3k and 5k and SomaScan 11k and they did SUREQUANT. 

And.....honestly I'm not sure what to think, but this is where I'd start.

I've never done SureQuant but impressions from friends who use it in their core is that is pretty damned accurate. You buy kits of spike in heavy peptides and you use those to trigger quan on an Orbitrap, right? Slow - high precision. That should work well.

The Biognosys prep appears to have been a classic Top14 depletion ---and SEER - is SEER. My impression is that they know what they are doing on those Astrals. 

The fact that there appears to be basically no good correlations on any of these platforms is striking and weird and worrisome and ultimately not at all what we've seen from others. I'll probably come back to this.