Isobaric Matching between Runs and Novel PSM-Level Normalization in MaxQuant Strongly Improve Reporter Ion-Based Quantification

Isobaric labeling has the promise of combining high sample multiplexing with precise quantification. However, normalization issues and the missing value problem of complete n-plexes hamper quantification across more than one n-plex. Here we introduce two novel algorithms implemented in MaxQuant that substantially improve the data analysis with multiple n-plexes. First, isobaric matching between runs (IMBR) makes use of the three-dimensional MS1 features to transfer identifications from identified to unidentified MS/MS spectra between LC-MS runs in order to utilize reporter ion intensities in unidentified spectra for quantification. On typical datasets, we observe a significant gain in quantifiable n-plexes. Second, we introduce a novel PSM-level normalization, applicable to data with and without common reference channel. It is a weighted median-based method, in which the weights reflect the number of ions that were used for fragmentation. On a typical dataset, we observe complete removal of batch effects and dominance of the biological sample grouping after normalization. Furthermore, we provide many novel processing and normalization options in Perseus, the companion software for the downstream analysis of quantitative proteomics results. All novel tools and algorithms are available with the regular MaxQuant and Perseus releases, which are downloadable at http://maxquant.org.

[1]  Runmin Wei,et al.  Missing Value Imputation Approach for Mass Spectrometry-based Metabolomics Data , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[2]  Bhavinkumar B. Patel,et al.  Isobaric labeling and data normalization without requiring protein quantitation. , 2012, Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT.

[3]  M. Robinson,et al.  A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data , 2010, Genome Biology.

[4]  Andrew H. Thompson,et al.  Tandem mass tags: a novel quantification strategy for comparative analysis of complex protein mixtures by MS/MS. , 2003, Analytical chemistry.

[5]  Xia Yang,et al.  Extended Multiplexing of Tandem Mass Tags (TMT) Labeling Reveals Age and High Fat Diet Specific Proteome Changes in Mouse Epididymal Adipose Tissue* , 2017, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[6]  F. Cross,et al.  Accurate quantitation of protein expression and site-specific phosphorylation. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Christopher M Rose,et al.  NeuCode Labels for Relative Protein Quantification * , 2014, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[8]  Jürgen Cox,et al.  Computational Methods for Understanding Mass Spectrometry–Based Shotgun Proteomics Data , 2018, Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science.

[9]  Matthew E. Ritchie,et al.  limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies , 2015, Nucleic acids research.

[10]  C. Conover Talbot,et al.  Proteome Profiling of Developing Murine Lens Through Mass Spectrometry , 2018, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  Leland McInnes,et al.  UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction , 2018, ArXiv.

[12]  M. Mann,et al.  Stable Isotope Labeling by Amino Acids in Cell Culture, SILAC, as a Simple and Accurate Approach to Expression Proteomics* , 2002, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[13]  Jürgen Cox,et al.  MaxQuant goes Linux , 2018, Nature Methods.

[14]  Dirk Valkenborg,et al.  This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of: CONSTANd : a normalization method for isobaric labeled spectra by constrained optimization , 2022 .

[15]  Jürgen Cox,et al.  A practical guide to the MaxQuant computational platform for SILAC-based quantitative proteomics , 2009, Nature Protocols.

[16]  Jürgen Cox,et al.  A Network Module for the Perseus Software for Computational Proteomics Facilitates Proteome Interaction Graph Analysis , 2018, bioRxiv.

[17]  N. Slavov,et al.  SCoPE-MS: mass spectrometry of single mammalian cells quantifies proteome heterogeneity during cell differentiation , 2017, Genome Biology.

[18]  Jüergen Cox,et al.  The MaxQuant computational platform for mass spectrometry-based shotgun proteomics , 2016, Nature Protocols.

[19]  J. Yates,et al.  Isobaric Labeling-Based Relative Quantification in Shotgun Proteomics , 2014, Journal of proteome research.

[20]  Eystein Oveland,et al.  The Brain Proteome of the Ubiquitin Ligase Peli1 Knock-Out Mouse during Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis , 2016, Journal of proteomics & bioinformatics.

[21]  Roman Fischer,et al.  MaxQuant Software for Ion Mobility Enhanced Shotgun Proteomics* , 2019, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[22]  Marco Y. Hein,et al.  The Perseus computational platform for comprehensive analysis of (prote)omics data , 2016, Nature Methods.

[23]  Lai Guan Ng,et al.  Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using UMAP , 2018, Nature Biotechnology.

[24]  Harry Yang,et al.  Statistical Models for the Analysis of Isobaric Tags Multiplexed Quantitative Proteomics. , 2017, Journal of proteome research.

[25]  Leland McInnes,et al.  UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection , 2018, J. Open Source Softw..

[26]  Michael P Weekes,et al.  Compositional Proteomics: Effects of Spatial Constraints on Protein Quantification Utilizing Isobaric Tags , 2017, Journal of proteome research.

[27]  Shu-Hui Chen,et al.  Stable-isotope dimethyl labeling for quantitative proteomics. , 2003, Analytical chemistry.

[28]  Laurens van der Maaten,et al.  Accelerating t-SNE using tree-based algorithms , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[29]  Reinhard Guthke,et al.  Missing values in gel‐based proteomics , 2010, Proteomics.

[30]  K. Parker,et al.  Multiplexed Protein Quantitation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Using Amine-reactive Isobaric Tagging Reagents*S , 2004, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[31]  Kenneth Lange,et al.  Numerical analysis for statisticians , 1999 .

[32]  Laurent Gatto,et al.  Accounting for the Multiple Natures of Missing Values in Label-Free Quantitative Proteomics Data Sets to Compare Imputation Strategies. , 2016, Journal of proteome research.

[33]  Martin Eisenacher,et al.  The PRIDE database and related tools and resources in 2019: improving support for quantification data , 2018, Nucleic Acids Res..

[34]  Derek J. Bailey,et al.  Intelligent Data Acquisition Blends Targeted and Discovery Methods , 2014, Journal of proteome research.

[35]  M. Mann,et al.  MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[36]  Marco Y. Hein,et al.  Accurate Proteome-wide Label-free Quantification by Delayed Normalization and Maximal Peptide Ratio Extraction, Termed MaxLFQ * , 2014, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[37]  Stefka Tyanova,et al.  Perseus: A Bioinformatics Platform for Integrative Analysis of Proteomics Data in Cancer Research. , 2018, Methods in molecular biology.

[38]  P C Carvalho,et al.  Pinpointing differentially expressed domains in complex protein mixtures with the cloud service of PatternLab for Proteomics. , 2013, Journal of proteomics.

[39]  Steven P. Gygi,et al.  Proteome-Wide Evaluation of Two Common Protein Quantification Methods. , 2018, Journal of proteome research.

[40]  N. Slavov,et al.  SCoPE-MS: mass spectrometry of single mammalian cells quantifies proteome heterogeneity during cell differentiation , 2017, Genome Biology.

[41]  N. Samatova,et al.  Detecting differential and correlated protein expression in label-free shotgun proteomics. , 2006, Journal of proteome research.