ABSTRACT Patients with pneumonia and parapneumonic effusion (PPE) have elevated mortality and a poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to discover novel biomarkers to help distinguish

between uncomplicated PPE (UPPE) and complicated PPE (CPPE). Using an iTRAQ-based quantitative proteomics, we identified 766 proteins in pleural effusions from PPE patients. In total, 45 of

these proteins were quantified as upregulated proteins in CPPE. Four novel upregulated candidates (BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin) were selected and further verified using enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) on 220 patients with pleural effusions due to different causes. The pleural fluid levels of BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin were significantly elevated in

improved the sensitivity and specificity to 100% and 91.4%, respectively. Thus, our findings provided a comprehensive effusion proteome data set for PPE biomarker discovery and revealed

novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of CPPE. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS DIAGNOSING PLEURAL EFFUSIONS USING MASS SPECTROMETRY-BASED MULTIPLEXED TARGETED PROTEOMICS QUANTITATING

MID- TO HIGH-ABUNDANCE MARKERS OF CANCER, INFECTION/INFLAMMATION AND TUBERCULOSIS Article Open access 23 February 2022 PLEURAL CYTOKINES MIF AND MIP-3Α AS NOVEL BIOMARKERS FOR COMPLICATED

PARAPNEUMONIC EFFUSIONS AND EMPYEMA Article Open access 19 January 2021 BIOMARKER CANDIDATES FOR PROGRESSION AND CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED PNEUMONIA AT TIME OF ADMISSION

Article Open access 12 January 2022 INTRODUCTION A parapneumonic effusion (PPE) is an accumulation of exudative pleural fluid that occurs in association with an ipsilateral pulmonary

infection. PPEs are present in 20% to 40% of hospitalized patients with pneumonia1. Based on fluid characteristics and pathogenesis, PPEs are classified into the following three groups:

uncomplicated PPE (UPPE), complicated PPE (CPPE), and thoracic empyema2. The occurrence of CPPE or empyema greatly increases the risk of morbidity and mortality compared to that of UPPE1.

Generally, UPPE can be cured with antibiotic treatment alone. When CPPE and empyema are present, pleural space drainage is mandatory2. For conditions such as patients with loculated pleural

collection or poor clinical progress during treatment with antibiotics alone, drainage treatment will also be required3. Thus, an accurate diagnosis in the early stages of PPE is important

for clinicians. The classical criteria for clinical diagnosis of PPE is based on the biochemical parameters of the pleural effusions, including levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH),

glucose, and pH1. To improve PPE diagnosis, numerous biomarkers, such as inflammatory cytokines (tumour necrosis factor-alpha/TNF-α, interleukin-8/IL-8, and IL-1β), enzymes (neutrophil

elastase, myeloperoxidase/MPO, and metalloproteinases/MMPs), C-reactive protein (CRP), and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells (sTREM-1), have been evaluated4,5,6,7,8,9.

In these reports, the candidates were selected by a literature search and confirmed by immunoassays10. Currently, high-throughput proteomics technology provides more comprehensive proteome

profiling of body fluids, which facilitates biomarker discovery11,12,13. Thus, the characterization of proteomic changes associated with PPE progression helps to elucidate disease mechanisms

and identify useful biomarkers and therapeutic targets. In this study, we aimed to investigate useful biomarkers for the differential diagnosis of UPPE and CPPE, with the goal of

identifying specific proteins and pathways important for the molecular mechanisms of PPE progression. Using the comprehensive proteomics approach, we generated the PPE proteome data set for

biomarker research and verified the levels of four novel proteins (BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin) in PPE. Collectively, we identified novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of CPPE. RESULTS

PROTEOME PROFILING OF UPPE AND CPPE BY ITRAQ-BASED MASS SPECTROMETRY To identify novel biomarkers for PPE diagnosis, the proteomes of pleural effusions from patients with UPPE and CPPE

(Supplementary Table 1) were analyzed using iTRAQ-based mass spectrometry (Fig. 1). After depletion of six abundant proteins (albumin, immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin A, transferrin,

α1-antitrypsin, and haptoglobin) using affinity column, the pleural effusion samples from 4 UPPE patients and 4 CPPE patients were pooled equally (10 μg proteins from each patient) into the

UPPE group and the CPPE group (Exp 1), respectively, to diminish the influences of between-individual variations. For technical replicates, the second sets of samples from UPPE patients and

CPPE patients were prepared from different batches (Exp 2). The two set of samples were digested with trypsin and then labeled with the iTRAQ reagent in parallel. As shown in Fig. 1, iTRAQ

114 and 116 reagents were combined with peptides from UPPE samples of Exp 1 and Exp 2, respectively. Peptides from CPPE samples of Exp 1 and Exp 2 were labeled with iTRAQ 115 and 117

reagents, respectively. The iTRAQ-labeled samples were then analyzed by two-dimensional LC-MS/MS for quantitative proteomic analysis. The two-dimensional fractionation of the labeled

peptides involved the use of an online SCX separation in the first dimension, followed by an online reverse phase fractionation. Each fraction was analyzed using a LTQ-Orbitrap system. The

MS/MS spectra were searched against the Swiss-Prot human sequence database with the Mascot algorithm in the Proteome Discoverer software. The search results were further filtered with high

confidence of peptide identification and at least two peptide hits for each protein identification to ensure an overall false-discovery rate below 0.01. Using this approach, we identified

766 non-redundant proteins and quantified 740 and 738 proteins in Exp 1 and Exp 2, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 1A). Proteins with CPPE/UPPE ratios below the mean of all ratios minus the

standard deviation (SD) of all ratios were considered to be underexpressed (0.658 and 0.668 for Exp 1 and Exp 2, respectively). Proteins above the mean plus the SD were considered to be

overexpressed (1.381 and 1.593 for Exp 1 and Exp 2, respectively). Only those proteins with altered expression in both experiments were considered potential candidates for dysregulated

proteins in the CPPE group. This approach increases the probability of discovering candidates that are affected by PPE progression irrespective of experimental variations. Using these

criteria, 80 proteins were identified with differential expression in both Exp 1 and Exp 2. Among them, 45 proteins with higher expression levels and 35 proteins with lower expression levels

in the CPPE group were found in both experimental replicates (Supplementary Fig. 1B). The detail information of these 45 up-regulated proteins and 35 down-regulated proteins in CPPE were

summarized in Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Table 3, respectively. PATHWAY ANALYSIS OF 45 PROTEINS UP-REGULATED IN CPPE COMPARED WITH UPPE To explore the biological significances

of these 45 proteins up-regulated in CPPE compared with UPPE in depth, the biological processes, pathway annotations, and molecular functions were revealed using DAVID Gene Functional

Classification Tool (v6.7). The enrichment biological processes revealed that the up-regulated proteins were significantly involved in the defense response, immune response, macromolecular

complex subunit organization, and defense response to bacteria (Table 1). Moreover, the differentially expressed proteins were analyzed with MetaCore bioinformatics software to determine the

GO of cellular processes involved in CPPE and UPPE. The top three most significant cellular processes were those related to responses to bacteria, defense responses to bacteria, and

nucleosome assembly (Supplementary Table 4). These results collectively indicated that proteins involved in the defense response to bacteria and immune response were significantly associated

with CPPE. ELEVATED PLEURAL FLUID LEVELS OF BPI, NGAL, AZU1, AND CALPROTECTIN IN PPE, PARTICULARLY INDIVIDUALS WITH CPPE According to the proteomics data and bioinformatics analysis, four

proteins were selected as potential biomarker candidates, including BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin, and their roles in pleural effusions have not been addressed before. These proteins

were further verified by sandwich ELISA. We determined the pleural fluid levels of these four candidates in 176 patients with five different causes of pleural effusion (Table 2; PPE refers

to UPPE and CPPE; non-PPE refers to transudates, other exudates, and malignant effusions). As shown in Fig. 2, the pleural fluid levels of BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin in PPEs were

significantly higher than those in non-PPEs. Among the five types of pleural effusions, the protein levels of BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin in CPPE were highest and estimated (expressed

as the mean values ± s.e.m.) as 274.5 ± 43.6 ng/ml, 1035.5 ± 130.4 ng/ml, 669.5 ± 84.5 ng/ml, and 152.7 ± 12.1 μg/ml, respectively (Table 3). The true positive rate (sensitivity) was plotted

against the false positive rate (100% − specificity), and the area under the curve (AUC) values were reported with a 95% confidence interval as an estimate of diagnostic usefulness. The

AUCs for distinguishing PPE from non-PPE were 0.946 for BPI, 0.983 for NGAL, 0.943 for AZU1, and 0.931 for calprotectin (Table 4). DECISION VALUES OF BPI, NGAL, AZU1, AND CALPROTECTIN FOR

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN UPPE AND CPPE We next evaluated the diagnostic performance of these four novel biomarkers and three traditional biochemical parameters (pH, Glucose, and LDH) in

identifying CPPE. The AUCs for distinguishing CPPE from UPPE were 0.966 for BPI, 0.875 for NGAL, 0.807 for AZU1, 0.937 for calprotectin, 0.915 for LDH, 0.907 for glucose, and 0.947 for pH

value. Of the biomarkers studied, BPI had the best diagnostic value for CPPE, with a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 91.4%, a PPV of 91.4%, and a NPV of 96.9% (Table 5). A univariate

logistic regression analysis demonstrated a strong association between BPI levels > 10 ng/ml and CPPE, with a high odds ratio of 341.3 (_p_ < 0.001) (Table 5). In addition, CPPE

patients can be further sub-grouped into empyema patients with pus collection in the pleural space. Among the 33 patients with CPPE in our study, 21 patients had empyema. The mean BPI level

of the empyema group was 332.0 ng/ml, which was significantly higher (_p_ = 0.001) than in the non-purulent CPPE patients (173.7 ng/ml) (Supplementary Table 5). These observations may

indicate that the BPI levels are elevated in exacerbated disease. We also evaluated the performance of these four biomarkers in identifying which patients with a PPE required drainage.

Supplementary Table 6 showed that the AUCs for identifying PPE patients who required chest drainage were 0.793 for BPI, 0.756 for NGAL, 0.760 for AZU1, and 0.768 for calprotectin. THE

COMBINATION OF PLEURAL FLUID BPI LEVELS WITH LDH LEVELS FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF CPPE Supplementary Table 7 showed the correlation between these four novel biomarkers and the biochemical

parameters. All parameters studied in pleural effusions showed a statistically significant correlation (_p_ < 0.01). In the case of pH and glucose, the correlation with respect to the

other parameters was negative (Supplementary Table 7). Among the four novel biomarkers identified, the pleural fluid levels of BPI showed the highest positive correlation with LDH (_r_ = 

0.73) and a negative correlation with pH (_r_ = −0.83) and glucose (_r_ = −0.77) (Supplementary Table 7). Among the three biochemical parameters, the pleural fluid levels of LDH had the best

diagnostic value for CPPE, with a sensitivity of 81.8%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100%, and a NPV of 85.4%. Because the BPI levels and the biochemical parameter were also sensitive

and specific for the diagnosis of CPPE, we sought to combine the BPI levels and LDH levels to improve the diagnostic power of BPI measurement for clinical use. The optimal cutoff BPI levels

in the pleural fluid was 10 ng/ml; the test was considered positive for BPI levels > 10 ng/ml. According to this criterion, 32 and 1 cases in the CPPE group (N = 33) were positive and

negative, respectively. The optimal cutoff LDH levels in the pleural fluid was 1000 U/l; the test was considered positive for LDH levels > 1000 U/l. Thus, the 1 CPPE case which was

negative based on detection of BPI levels was now positive by detection LDH levels (Fig. 3a). Thus, the combination of pleural fluid BPI levels with LDH levels improved the sensitivity to

100% for identifying CPPE. A total of 44 patients from a new independent cohort were collected and pleural fluid levels of these biomarkers were analyzed (Supplementary Table 8). As shown in

Table 3, the pleural fluid levels of BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin in CPPE were significantly higher than those in UPPE. Consistent with the results we observed in the first cohort, the

AUCs for distinguishing CPPE from UPPE were 0.972 for BPI, 0.865 for NGAL, 0.848 for AZU1, 0.968 for calprotectin in the validation cohort (Supplementary Table 8). The performance of the

BPI levels combined with LDH levels for identifying CPPE was consistent with the first cohort, with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 92.3% in the validation cohort (Fig. 3b). In

conclusion, we identified BPI, NGAL, AZU1 and calprotectin to be novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of CPPE. The combination of the BPI levels and LDH levels constitutes the highly

sensitivity and specificity for CPPE diagnosis. DISCUSSION In this study, we provided a comprehensive proteome profiling of UPPE and CPPE fluid specimen samples. Using iTRAQ-based mass

spectrometry analysis, 766 proteins were identified in our pleural effusion samples. Among these proteins, 45 proteins were quantified as upregulated proteins in CPPE. The four novel

proteins (BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin) identified in pleural effusion fluid specimens were further verified by ELISA in samples from 176 patients with different pleural effusion

aetiologies. Patients with PPE expressed significantly higher levels of BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin than patients with other aetiologies. In addition, our test data using the

univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated a strong link between patients with a BPI level > 10 ng/ml and CPPE. Compared with currently used biochemical parameters, such as LDH,

glucose, and pH, the distinct characteristics of BPI achieved better performance in identifying CPPE, with an AUC value of 0.966. Furthermore, the combination of pleural fluid BPI levels

with LDH levels improved the sensitivity to 100% for identifying CPPE. In our effusion proteome datasets, we identified the elevated expression of certain proteins that have previously been

reported in CPPE, including neutrophil collagenase (also called matrix metalloproteinase 8 (MMP8)), neutrophil elastase, matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9), and MPO. Therefore, the

high-throughput proteomics approach not only assisted in verifying the reported molecules but also performed as a tool to discover new biomarkers for PPEs. LDH is composed of four subunits

and a total of five distinct LDH isoenzymes with a different combination of two common subunits are expressed. In our analysis, it is indeed highly elevated in the pleural fluid of a total

of 33 CPPE patients (5781.88 ± 1744.09 U/l) than that of UPPE patients (401.14 ± 52.05 U/l) by ELISA analysis for total LDH (Table 2). The samples used for the proteomic analysis were from

randomly selected 4 CPPE patients and 4 UPPE patients whose average LDH concentrations were 1264.25 ± 440.08 U/l and 789.75 ± 45.37 U/l, respectively (Supplementary Table 1). The difference

of LDH concentration among these two groups of patients is about 1.6 fold. The results of our proteomic analysis showed that the amounts of LDH-A chain are up-regulated 1.47 fold (Exp 1) and

1.72 fold (Exp 2) in the samples of these 4 CPPE patients (Supplementary Table 2). These data are in good agreement with the ELISA results suggesting highly compatible and reliable

comparison between the proteomic analysis and ELISA analysis. The reason that LDH holds one of the lowest upregulated protein fold changes in the detected proteome is simply due to the use

of selected samples. BPI and AZU1 are neutrophil granule proteins that have antimicrobial activities against bacteria14, 15. Many reports indicate that BPI and AZU1 may play a role in

infectious and inflammatory diseases16, 17. Plasma levels of BPI and AZU1 are increased in severe sepsis18, 19. High plasma levels of BPI correlate with increased mortality during sepsis,

indicating massive bacterial counts19. However, the levels of BPI or AZU1 in pleural effusions have not been addressed. In our study, we demonstrated that pleural BPI had the best diagnostic

value for CPPE (AUC = 0.966). We also found that the levels of BPI in pleural effusion were two-fold higher in patients with empyema; therefore, BPI may be a marker for disease progression.

The longitudinal cohort study will help us to further characterize whether the elevated BPI levels indicate more severe disease. The AUC for distinguishing PPE from non-PPE was 0.943 for

AZU1. The sensitivity of AZU1 for distinguishing CPPE from UPPE was 97.0%, which is similar to BPI. However, the specificity of AZU1 (65.7%) was not sufficient for clinical use. NGAL is a

neutrophil granule protein involved in the immune response. An elevated level of NGAL in serum has been reported in kidney disease, inflammatory diseases, heart diseases, metabolic diseases,

and cancers20,21,22,23. In our study, we characterized PPE into two subtypes (UPPE and CPPE) and found that the pleural fluid levels of NGAL were significantly higher in CPPE than UPPE (_p 

_ <0.001). A novel finding in our study was that the pleural fluid NGAL levels can not only distinguish PPE from non-PPE but also can distinguish CPPE from UPPE. Calprotectin is a

neutrophil protein that plays a role in inflammatory disease and cancer24,25,26. In pneumonia patients, calprotectin levels are elevated in BALF, lung tissue and serum27. A novel finding in

our study was that the level of pleural calprotectin was significantly elevated in PPE, particularly CPPE. Additionally, the mean calprotectin level of the empyema group was 168.6 ng/ml,

which was slightly higher (_p_ = 0.013) than that of non-purulent CPPE patients (124.8 ng/ml) (Supplementary Table 5). These observations may indicate that calprotectin levels are slightly

elevated in exacerbated disease. The strong correlations between these four neutrophil proteins and the glucose, LDH, and pH levels of pleural fluid indicate that specific proteins may play

a role in the modulation of infection in the pleural fluid of PPEs. These findings provide important insights into the role of neutrophils in CPPE pathogenesis. During the acute phase of

infectious pleural effusions, neutrophils are the first leukocytes to be recruited to the inflamed tissues, leading to elevated neutrophil counts in pleural effusions28. In our study, the

percentage of neutrophils in total nucleated cells was significantly higher in CPPEs (84.8 ± 2.7%) than in UPPEs (68.1 ± 3.1%) (Data not shown). However, using the neutrophil count to

distinguish UPPEs from CPPEs is less effective statistically than using the four proteins (BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin) we identified as biomarkers in clinical diagnosis. Because the

half-life of the neutrophil is short but the proteins released from the dead neutrophils may still continue to activate the inflammatory response, evaluating only the neutrophil count in

pleural effusions will not accurately identify the severity of the inflammation status during the infection. Thus, measuring the levels of proteins released by neutrophils in pleural

effusions will lead to a more accurate clinical diagnosis than measuring the neutrophil count when diagnosing PPE. To our knowledge, this is the first clinical quantitative proteomic study

to profile the proteome of UPPEs and CPPEs using iTRAQ-based mass spectrometry technology. This high-throughput proteomics approach provides an opportunity to discover new biomarkers that

have not been previously reported for UPPE and CPPE. The study presented herein has some limitations. The first limitation is the lack of pulmonary tuberculosis patients enrolled in this

study. Second, the treatment for CPPE and loculated PPE may require aggressive pleural drainage, but the decision to perform the drainage treatment primarily depended on the patients and the

families in the present study, which influenced the eventual outcomes. In conclusion, the present study reveals that pleural levels of BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin are significantly

associated with PPEs, particularly CPPEs, according to high-throughput proteomics analysis. Our present findings not only provide a panel of novel biomarkers for a better identification of

CPPE but also illustrate the opportunity of this effective tool for shedding lights on the potential immune-pathological mechanisms involved in this high-risk infectious disease. METHODS

STUDY SUBJECTS AND STUDY DESIGN In total, 220 pleural effusion samples of diagnosed patients from two teaching hospitals were included in this prospective study, which was approved by the

Institutional Review Board at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH) and Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH), Taiwan. All experiments were performed in accordance with the guidelines and

regulations by the Institutional Review Board at CGMH and TSGH. Prior to sample collection, written informed consent was obtained from all patients and/or their families. The pleural

effusion samples were collected and diagnosed when the patients were admitted to the hospital, followed by ultrasound-guided thoracentesis. Patients were classified in the first cohort into

five groups (Table 2) according to the cause of pleural effusion: UPPE (35 patients), CPPE (33 patients), transudates (37 patients), other exudates (32 patients), and malignant effusions (39

patients). A total of 44 patients from a new independent cohort were collected: UPPE (26 patients) and CPPE (18 patients). Based on the LIGHT criteria, effusions were categorized as either

exudates or transudates11. PPE is defined as any exudative effusion associated with pneumonia, lung abscess, or bronchiectasis and is further classified as UPPE or CPPE. CPPE is defined as

the presence of PPE with one of the following additional criteria: (1) pH < 7.2; (2) glucose < 60 mg/dl; (3) LDH > 1000 U/l; (4) bacteria found on Gram’s stain or culture; or (5)

frank pus3, 12. Patients received pleural drainage or surgery for the treatment of their PPEs based on previously accepted guidelines [3]. Malignant pleural effusions were diagnosed based on

the presence of positive malignant cells in a cytological examination. After collection, effusions were centrifuged at 3,000 rcf for 10 min. Acellular supernatants were collected and stored

at −80 °C until used for further experiments. For the initial discovery phase, a set of effusions from UPPE (4 patients) and CPPE (4 patients) patients were screened using isobaric tags for

relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ)-based mass spectrometry. A total of 220 pleural effusions from the five types of PPEs were used to validate potential biomarkers by enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assay (ELISA). REMOVAL OF HIGH-ABUNDANCE PROTEINS OF PLEURAL EFFUSION SAMPLES Pleural effusion samples were depleted of six high-abundance human plasma proteins (albumin,

immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin A, transferrin, α1-antitrypsin, and haptoglobin) using a Multiple Affinity Removal System (MARS) affinity column (Hu-6HC, 4.6 × 100 mm; Agilent Technologies,

Wilmington, DE, USA) on an ÄKTA Purifier-10 fast performance liquid chromatography system (FPLC; GE Healthcare/Amersham Bioscience, UK). Depleted pleural effusion samples were concentrated

using an Amicon Ultra-4 centrifugal filter unit with an Ultracel-3 membrane (Millipore, Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork, Ireland). After the depletion of high-abundance proteins, the protein

concentrations of the PPE samples were determined using the BCA protein assay kit from Pierce (Rockford, IL, USA). In the experiment 1, pleural effusion samples (10 μg proteins) from each 4

UPPE patients and 4 CPPE patients with high-abundance protein depletion were then pooled into UPPE group (total 40 μg proteins in UPPE) and CPPE group (total 40 μg proteins in CPPE),

respectively. For the technical replicates, the second set (experiment 2) of pooled samples from 4 UPPE patients and 4 CPPE patients were prepared from different batches. IN-SOLUTION

DIGESTION OF PROTEIN AND ITRAQ LABELING For tryptic digestion of PPE proteins, 30 μg proteins from the pooled UPPE group or CPPE group were reduced with 5 mM tris-(2-carboxyethyl)-phosphine

(TCEP, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) at 60 °C for 30 min, treated with 10 mM methyl methanethiosulfonate (MMTS, Sigma-Aldrich) at 25 °C for 30 min, and then digested at 37 °C for 16 

hours by trypsin (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) in solution containing 100 mM triethylammonium bicarbonate (TEABC, Sigma-Aldrich). For iTRAQ labeling, the tryptic peptides were labelled with

four different iTRAQ labelling reagents according to the manufacturer’s protocols. Briefly, the peptides from the pooled UPPE group and pooled CPPE group (Exp 1) were labeled with iTRAQ 114

and 115 tags, respectively. For the technical replicates, the iTRAQ 116 and 117 tags were respectively incubated with peptide samples from the pooled UPPE group and pooled CPPE group (Exp

2), respectively, which were prepared in different batches. After incubation for 1 h at room temperature, the four labeled samples were pooled, desalted, and then dried using vacuum

centrifugation. PEPTIDE FRACTIONATION AND LC-MS/MS ANALYSIS The iTRAQ-labeled peptide mixtures (30 μg) were separated using the on-line 2D-HPLC system (Dionex Ultimate 3000, Thermo Fisher

Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) and analyzed using a method described previously29. Briefly, the desalted peptides (30 μg) were reconstituted in 50 μL of buffer A (0.1% formic acid and 30%

acetonitrile) and loaded onto the homemade column (Luna SCX, 5 μm, 0.5 × 180 mm) at a flow rate of 5 μL/min for 30 min. The peptides were then eluted with a 0–100% gradient of buffer B (0.5 

M ammonium chloride, 30% acetonitrile, and 0.1% formic acid). The resulting 66 peptide fractions were diluted in-line prior to trap onto the column Zorbax 300SB-C18 (0.3 × 5 mm, Agilent

Technologies, Wilmington, DE, USA). Each fraction was then separated on a homemade column (HydroRP 2.5 μm, 75 μm inner diameter and 20 cm length) with a 15-μm tip using buffer C

(acetonitrile containing 0.1% formic acid). A linear gradients of buffer C (3–28% for 37 min, 28–50% for 12 min, 50–95% for 2 min, 95% for 5 min, and 3% for 9 min) was applied at a flow rate

of 0.3 μL/min. The LC equipment was connected to the LTQ-Orbitrap ELITE Hybrid MS (Thermo Fisher Scientific) operated using Xcalibur software (Version 2.2, Thermo Fisher Scientific).

Full-scan MS was performed in the Orbitrap MS over a range of 400 to 2000 Da and a resolution of 60000 at _m/z_ 400. The ion signal of (Si(CH3)2O)6H+ at _m/z_ 445.120025, 462.146574, and

536.165365 was used for lock masses and internal calibration. The 12 data-dependent MS/MS scan events, including 6 collision-induced dissociations (CID) acquired in LTQ MS and 6

higher-energy collision-induced dissociations (HCD) acquired in Orbitrap MS, were followed by one MS scan for the six most abundant ions in the preview MS scan. The _m/z_ values selected for

MS2 were excluded dynamically for 40 seconds with a relative mass window of 1.5 Da. The electrospray voltage was set to 1.8 kV, and the temperature of the capillary was set to 220 °C.

Automatic gain control was applied to preclude over-filling of the ion trap, and 2 × 106 ions/1000 ms, 5 × 103 ions/150 ms, and 3 × 104 ions/300 ms were set as the maximum accumulated

ions/time for the full scan, CID, and HCD, respectively. PROTEIN DATABASE SEARCH AND QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS The data analysis was carried out using Proteome Discoverer software (version

1.4, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) including the reporter ions quantifier node for iTRAQ quantification. The MS/MS spectra was searched against the Swiss-Prot human sequence

database (released on Apr 16, 2014, selected for Homo sapiens, 20265 entries) using the Mascot search engine (Matrix Science, London, UK; version 2.2.04). For protein identification, 10 ppm

mass tolerance was permitted for intact peptide masses and 0.5 Da for fragment ions, with allowance for one missed cleavages made from the trypsin digest: oxidized methionine (+16 Da) as a

potential variable modification, and iTRAQ (N terminal, +144 Da), iTRAQ (K, +144 Da), and methyl methanethiosulfonate (C, +46 Da) as the fixed modifications. Data were then filtered based on

high confidence of peptide identification to ensure an overall false discovery rate below 0.01. The identification of epithelial keratins was excluded. Proteins with single peptide hits

were removed, and quantitative data were exported from Proteome Discoverer and manually normalized such that the log2 of iTRAQ ratios displayed a median value of zero for all peptides in a

given protein. This was performed across an entire labeling experiment to correct for variation in protein abundance. The cutoff value for determining whether a protein in considered

dysregulated was selected according to the analysis using comparison of protein levels between the same UPPE samples in two different batch experiments; the range of protein ratios (iTRAQ

116/114) from 0.715 (mean minus 3 SD) to 1.351 (mean plus 3 SD) covers 99% of the proteins. Proteins quantified with ratios between 0.715–1.351 were considered as no change in our analysis.

Therefore, proteins whose CPPE/UPPE ratios were higher than the mean plus one SD (1.381 and 1.593 in Exp 1 and Exp 2, respectively) or lower than the mean minus one SD (0.658 and 0.668 in

Exp 1 and Exp 2, respectively) were considered potential dysregulated proteins. BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS Biological process classification and signalling pathway analysis for the dysregulated

proteins were performed with the tools of the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID, version 6.7, http://david.abcc.ncifcrf.gov/) and the Kyoto Encyclopedia

of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway.html). After relative quantification analysis, differentially expressed proteins were uploaded into MetaCore version

6.13 build 61585 (GeneGo, St. Joseph, MI) for gene ontology (GO) of cellular processes analysis. MEASUREMENT OF PROTEINS BY ELISA Commercial sandwich ELISA kits were used to detect the

pleural effusion levels of bactericidal permeability-increasing protein (BPI; LSBio, WA, USA), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL; R&D Systems, MN, USA), azurocidin (AZU1;

Abnova, CA, USA), and calprotectin (R&D Systems, MN, USA). The assays were performed according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. STATISTICAL ANALYSES Between-group comparisons were

performed with a nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test for two groups. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to illustrate the decision value of various cut-off points for

BPI, NGAL, AZU1, and calprotectin. The point with the largest sum of specificity and sensitivity was selected as the threshold. The positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive

values (NPVs) were calculated. Spearman correlation was used to measure the association between biochemical parameters and candidate proteins. A univariate logistic regression was performed

to analyse the association between pleural fluid tests and the presence of CPPE. Unadjusted ORs were calculated as an estimate of risk. All data were processed using SPSS software version

12.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A _p_ value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. DATA AVAILABILITY The effusion proteome datasets in this study are available from the

corresponding author (C.Y.Y.) on reasonable request. REFERENCES * Light, R. W. Parapneumonic effusions and empyema. _Proc Am Thorac Soc_ 3, 75–80 (2006). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  * Sahn, S. A. Diagnosis and management of parapneumonic effusions and empyema. _Clin Infect Dis_ 45, 1480–1486 (2007). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Davies, H. E., Davies, R. J.

& Davies, C. W. & British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline Group Management of pleural infection in adults: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010.

_Thorax_ 65(Suppl 2), ii41–53 (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Alegre, J. _et al_. Pleural-fluid myeloperoxidase in complicated and noncomplicated parapneumonic pleural effusions.

_Eur Respir J_ 19, 320–325 (2002). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Aleman, C. _et al_. Polymorphonuclear elastase in the early diagnosis of complicated pyogenic pleural effusions.

_Respiration_ 70, 462–467 (2003). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Porcel, J. M., Vives, M. & Esquerda, A. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha in pleural fluid: a marker of complicated

parapneumonic effusions. _Chest_ 125, 160–164 (2004). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Iglesias, D. _et al_. Metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in exudative

pleural effusions. _Eur Respir J_ 25, 104–109 (2005). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Porcel, J. M. _et al_. Biomarkers of infection for the differential diagnosis of pleural

effusions. _Eur Respir J_ 34, 1383–1389 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Marchi, E. _et al_. Proinflammatory and antiinflammatory cytokine levels in complicated and

noncomplicated parapneumonic pleural effusions. _Chest_ 141, 183–189 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Porcel, J. M. Pleural fluid tests to identify complicated parapneumonic

effusions. _Curr Opin Pulm Med_ 16, 357–361 (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Yu, C. J. _et al_. Comprehensive proteome analysis of malignant pleural effusion for lung cancer

biomarker discovery by using multidimensional protein identification technology. _J Proteome Res_ 10, 4671–4682 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Wu, C. C., Chu, H. W., Hsu, C.

W., Chang, K. P. & Liu, H. P. Saliva proteome profiling reveals potential salivary biomarkers for detection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. _Proteomics_ 15, 3394–3404 (2015).

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Liu, P. J. _et al_. In-depth proteomic analysis of six types of exudative pleural effusions for nonsmall cell lung cancer biomarker discovery. _Mol

Cell Proteomics_ 14, 917–932 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Levy, O. A neutrophil-derived anti-infective molecule: bactericidal/permeability-increasing

protein. _Antimicrob Agents Chemother_ 44, 2925–2931 (2000). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Linder, A., Soehnlein, O. & Akesson, P. Roles of heparin-binding

protein in bacterial infections. _J Innate Immun_ 2, 431–438 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Schultz, H. & Weiss, J. P. The bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein

(BPI) in infection and inflammatory disease. _Clin Chim Acta_ 384, 12–23 (2007). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Soehnlein, O. & Lindbom, L. Neutrophil-derived

azurocidin alarms the immune system. _J Leukoc Biol_ 85, 344–351 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Linder, A. _et al_. Elevated plasma levels of heparin-binding protein in

intensive care unit patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. _Crit Care_ 16, R90 (2012). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Rintala, E., Peuravuori, H., Pulkki, K.,

Voipio-Pulkki, L. M. & Nevalainen, T. Bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein (BPI) in sepsis correlates with the severity of sepsis and the outcome. _Intensive Care Med_ 26,

1248–1251 (2000). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Otto, G. P. _et al_. Plasma Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin Is Primarily Related to Inflammation during Sepsis: A

Translational Approach. _PLoS One_ 10, e0124429 (2015). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * de Geus, H. R., Bakker, J., Lesaffre, E. M. & le Noble, J. L. Neutrophil

gelatinase-associated lipocalin at ICU admission predicts for acute kidney injury in adult patients. _Am J Respir Crit Care Med_ 183, 907–914 (2011). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Oikonomou, K. A. _et al_. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in inflammatory bowel disease: association with pathophysiology of inflammation, established markers, and disease

activity. _J Gastroenterol_ 47, 519–530 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Haase, M. _et al_. Accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in diagnosis and

prognosis in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. _Am J Kidney Dis_ 54, 1012–1024 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Khammanivong, A. _et al_. Involvement

of calprotectin (S100A8/A9) in molecular pathways associated with HNSCC. _Oncotarget_ 7, 14029–14047 (2016). PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Sanchez-Otero, N. _et al_.

Calprotectin: a novel biomarker for the diagnosis of pleural effusion. _Br J Cancer_ 107, 1876–1882 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Gebhardt, C., Nemeth, J.,

Angel, P. & Hess, J. S100A8 and S100A9 in inflammation and cancer. _Biochem Pharmacol_ 72, 1622–1631 (2006). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Achouiti, A. _et al_. Myeloid-related

protein-8/14 facilitates bacterial growth during pneumococcal pneumonia. _Thorax_ 69, 1034–1042 (2014). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Corcoran, J. P. _et al_. Pleural infection: past,

present, and future directions. _Lancet Respir Med_ 3, 563–577 (2015). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Chen, C. D. _et al_. Targeted proteomics pipeline reveals potential biomarkers for

the diagnosis of metastatic lung cancer in pleural effusion. _J Proteome Res_ 13, 2818–2829 (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was

supported by grants to Chia-Yu Yang from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan (MOST-104-2321-B-182-009-MY3) and Ministry of Education, Taiwan (EMRPD1F0221 and EMRPD1E1601),

grants to Kao-An Wu from Taoyuan Armed Forces General Hospital, Taiwan (AFTYGH-10206, AFTYGH-10305, and AFTYGH-10404), grants to Chih-Ching Wu from the MOST, Taiwan

(MOST-105-2320-B-182-025 and MOST-105-2320-B-182-003) and Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan (CLRPD190016 and BMRPC77), and grants to Hsi-Hsien Lin from the MOST, Taiwan

(MOST-104-2320-B-182-035-MY3) and the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CORPD1F0061 and BMRP860). AUTHOR INFORMATION Author notes * Kuo-An Wu and Chih-Ching Wu contributed equally to this work.

AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan Kuo-An Wu * Department of Internal Medicine, Taoyuan

Armed Forces General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan Kuo-An Wu * Department of Medical Biotechnology and Laboratory Science, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan Chih-Ching

Wu & Yu-Ching Liu * Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan Chih-Ching Wu * Molecular Medicine Research Center, Chang Gung

University, Taoyuan, Taiwan Chih-Ching Wu, Chi-De Chen & Chia-Yu Yang * Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, School of Public Health, National Defense Medical Center,

Taipei, Taiwan Chi-Ming Chu * Department of Medical Laboratory, Taoyuan Armed Forces General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan Li-Jane Shih * Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, National Defense

Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan Li-Jane Shih * Division of Pulmonary Oncology and Interventional Bronchoscopy, Department of Thoracic Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Chih-Liang Wang * Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan Hsi-Hsien Lin & Chia-Yu Yang * Chang Gung Immunology Consortium

and Department of Anatomic Pathology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan Hsi-Hsien Lin * Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital,

Taoyuan, Taiwan Chia-Yu Yang Authors * Kuo-An Wu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Chih-Ching Wu View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Chi-De Chen View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Chi-Ming Chu View author publications You

can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Li-Jane Shih View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Yu-Ching Liu View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Chih-Liang Wang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Hsi-Hsien

Lin View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Chia-Yu Yang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

CONTRIBUTIONS K.A.W. provided patient samples, analysed clinical data, and wrote the manuscript; C.C.W. performed research, analysed data, and wrote the manuscript; C.D.C., L.J.S., and Y.C.L

performed research and analysed data. C.M.C. contributed to the biostatistical analysis of the data. C.L.W. provided patients sample and analysed clinical data. H.H.L. contributed to the

design of the study. C.Y.Y. designed the study, supervised experiments, and wrote the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHORS Correspondence to Hsi-Hsien Lin or Chia-Yu Yang. ETHICS DECLARATIONS

COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional

claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL PROTEOME PROFILING REVEALS NOVEL BIOMARKERS TO IDENTIFY COMPLICATED PARAPNEUMONIC EFFUSIONS RIGHTS

AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in

any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The

images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not

included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly

from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Wu, KA., Wu, CC.,

Chen, CD. _et al._ Proteome profiling reveals novel biomarkers to identify complicated parapneumonic effusions. _Sci Rep_ 7, 4026 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04189-4 Download

citation * Received: 30 December 2016 * Accepted: 02 June 2017 * Published: 22 June 2017 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04189-4 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following

link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature

SharedIt content-sharing initiative