Performance of isobaric and isotopic labeling in quantitative plant proteomics.

Mass spectrometry has become indispensable for peptide and protein quantification in proteomics studies. When proteomics technologies are applied to understand the biology of plants, two-dimensional gel electrophoresis is still the prevalent method for protein fractionation, identification, and quantitation. In the present work, we have used LC-MS to compare an isotopic (ICPL) and isobaric (iTRAQ) chemical labeling technique to quantify proteins in the endosperm of Ricinus communis seeds at three developmental stages (IV, VI, and X). Endosperm proteins of each stage were trypsin-digested in-solution, and the same amount of peptides was labeled with ICPL and iTRAQ tags in two orders (forward and reverse). Each sample was submitted to nanoLC coupled to an LTQ-Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometer. Comparing labeling performance, iTRAQ was able to label 99.8% of all identified unique peptides, while 94.1% were labeled by ICPL. After statistical analysis, it was possible to quantify 309 (ICPL) and 321 (iTRAQ) proteins, from which 95 are specific to ICPL, 107 to iTRAQ, and 214 common to both labeling strategies. We noted that the iTRAQ quantification could be influenced by the tag. Even though the efficiency of the iTRAQ and ICPL in protein quantification depends on several parameters, both labeling methods were able to successfully quantify proteins present in the endosperm of castor bean during seed development and, when combined, increase the number of quantified proteins.

[1]  Lennart Martens,et al.  iTRAQ protein quantification: A quality‐controlled workflow , 2011, Proteomics.

[2]  L. Bindschedler,et al.  Quantitative plant proteomics , 2011, Proteomics.

[3]  Martin R Larsen,et al.  Selective enrichment of sialic acid–containing glycopeptides using titanium dioxide chromatography with analysis by HILIC and mass spectrometry , 2010, Nature Protocols.

[4]  G. Mazzucchelli,et al.  Novel post-digest isotope coded protein labeling method for phospho- and glycoproteome analysis. , 2010, Journal of proteomics.

[5]  Frank Kjeldsen,et al.  Undesirable charge-enhancement of isobaric tagged phosphopeptides leads to reduced identification efficiency. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[6]  Natalie Leys,et al.  Differential proteomic analysis using isotope‐coded protein‐labeling strategies: Comparison, improvements and application to simulated microgravity effect on Cupriavidus metallidurans CH34 , 2010, Proteomics.

[7]  F. Lottspeich,et al.  ICPLQuant – A software for non‐isobaric isotopic labeling proteomics , 2010, Proteomics.

[8]  Ishtiaq Rehman,et al.  iTRAQ underestimation in simple and complex mixtures: "the good, the bad and the ugly". , 2009, Journal of proteome research.

[9]  Karl Mechtler,et al.  High precision quantitative proteomics using iTRAQ on an LTQ Orbitrap: a new mass spectrometric method combining the benefits of all. , 2009, Journal of proteome research.

[10]  L. Gilbert,et al.  A phosphoproteomics approach to elucidate neuropeptide signal transduction controlling insect metamorphosis. , 2009, Insect biochemistry and molecular biology.

[11]  H. Krishnan,et al.  A rapid and simple procedure for the depletion of abundant storage proteins from legume seeds to advance proteome analysis: A case study using Glycine max , 2009, Proteomics.

[12]  S. Oeljeklaus,et al.  Advancements in plant proteomics using quantitative mass spectrometry. , 2009, Journal of proteomics.

[13]  Valmir Carneiro Barbosa,et al.  PatternLab for proteomics: a tool for differential shotgun proteomics , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[14]  Jay J. Thelen,et al.  Quantitative Proteomics in Plants: Choices in Abundance , 2007, The Plant Cell Online.

[15]  Mark D'Ascenzo,et al.  8‐Plex quantitation of changes in cerebrospinal fluid protein expression in subjects undergoing intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for Alzheimer's disease , 2007, Proteomics.

[16]  G. Domont,et al.  Proteome analysis of embryogenic cell suspensions of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) , 2007, Plant Cell Reports.

[17]  M. Mann,et al.  Mass spectrometry–based proteomics turns quantitative , 2005, Nature chemical biology.

[18]  A. Schmidt,et al.  A novel strategy for quantitative proteomics using isotope‐coded protein labels , 2005, Proteomics.

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

[20]  T. Shaler,et al.  Quantification of proteins and metabolites by mass spectrometry without isotopic labeling or spiked standards. , 2003, Analytical chemistry.

[21]  M. Mann,et al.  Properties of 13C-substituted arginine in stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC). , 2003, Journal of proteome research.

[22]  P. Roepstorff,et al.  Graphite powder as an alternative or supplement to reversed‐phase material for desalting and concentration of peptide mixtures prior to matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization‐mass spectrometry , 2002, Proteomics.

[23]  P. Manow ‚The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly‘ , 2002 .

[24]  E. Nordhoff,et al.  Sample purification and preparation technique based on nano-scale reversed-phase columns for the sensitive analysis of complex peptide mixtures by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry. , 1999, Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS.

[25]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[26]  J. Bewley,et al.  Seed development in Ricinus communis (castor bean). I. Descriptive morphology , 1982 .