Defining, Comparing, and Improving iTRAQ Quantification in Mass Spectrometry Proteomics Data*

The purpose of this study was to generate a basis for the decision of what protein quantities are reliable and find a way for accurate and precise protein quantification. To investigate this we have used thousands of peptide measurements to estimate variance and bias for quantification by iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification) mass spectrometry in complex human samples. A549 cell lysate was mixed in the proportions 2:2:1:1:2:2:1:1, fractionated by high resolution isoelectric focusing and liquid chromatography and analyzed by three mass spectrometry platforms; LTQ Orbitrap Velos, 4800 MALDI-TOF/TOF and 6530 Q-TOF. We have investigated how variance and bias in the iTRAQ reporter ions data are affected by common experimental variables such as sample amount, sample fractionation, fragmentation energy, and instrument platform. Based on this, we have suggested a concept for experimental design and a methodology for protein quantification. By using duplicate samples in each run, each experiment is validated based on its internal experimental variation. The duplicates are used for calculating peptide weights, unique to the experiment, which is used in the protein quantification. By weighting the peptides depending on reporter ion intensity, we can decrease the relative error in quantification at the protein level and assign a total weight to each protein that reflects the protein quantitation confidence. We also demonstrate the usability of this methodology in a cancer cell line experiment as well as in a clinical data set of lung cancer tissue samples. In conclusion, we have in this study developed a methodology for improved protein quantification in shotgun proteomics and introduced a way to assess quantification for proteins with few peptides. The experimental design and developed algorithms decreased the relative protein quantification error in the analysis of complex biological samples.

[1]  S. Gygi,et al.  Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags , 1999, Nature Biotechnology.

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

[3]  Timothy J Griffin,et al.  iTRAQ reagent-based quantitative proteomic analysis on a linear ion trap mass spectrometer. , 2007, Journal of proteome research.

[4]  J. Buhmann,et al.  Protein Identification False Discovery Rates for Very Large Proteomics Data Sets Generated by Tandem Mass Spectrometry* , 2009, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[5]  Bernhard Kuster,et al.  Robust and Sensitive iTRAQ Quantification on an LTQ Orbitrap Mass Spectrometer*S , 2008, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[6]  N. Karp,et al.  Addressing Accuracy and Precision Issues in iTRAQ Quantitation* , 2010, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[7]  Wen-Lian Hsu,et al.  Multi-Q: a fully automated tool for multiplexed protein quantitation. , 2006, Journal of proteome research.

[8]  Trong Khoa Pham,et al.  Technical, experimental, and biological variations in isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ). , 2007, Journal of proteome research.

[9]  Ruedi Aebersold,et al.  Options and considerations when selecting a quantitative proteomics strategy , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  John Chilton,et al.  LTQ‐iQuant: A freely available software pipeline for automated and accurate protein quantification of isobaric tagged peptide data from LTQ instruments , 2010, Proteomics.

[11]  Forest M White,et al.  The Potential Cost of High-Throughput Proteomics , 2011, Science Signaling.

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

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

[14]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Statistical Models in S , 1991 .

[15]  Martin Kircher,et al.  Deep proteome and transcriptome mapping of a human cancer cell line , 2011, Molecular systems biology.

[16]  M. Mann,et al.  Comparative Proteomic Analysis of Eleven Common Cell Lines Reveals Ubiquitous but Varying Expression of Most Proteins* , 2012, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[17]  R. Branca,et al.  Quantitative accuracy in mass spectrometry based proteomics of complex samples: the impact of labeling and precursor interference. , 2014, Journal of proteomics.

[18]  Ruedi Aebersold,et al.  The pros and cons of peptide-centric proteomics , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[19]  Sean L Seymour,et al.  The Paragon Algorithm, a Next Generation Search Engine That Uses Sequence Temperature Values and Feature Probabilities to Identify Peptides from Tandem Mass Spectra*S , 2007, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[20]  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.

[21]  Jing Fu,et al.  Proteomic screen reveals Fbw7 as a modulator of the NF-κB pathway , 2012, Nature Communications.

[22]  Jens M. Rick,et al.  Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: a critical review , 2007, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry.

[23]  Benno Schwikowski,et al.  Assessing Bias in Experiment Design for Large Scale Mass Spectrometry-based Quantitative Proteomics*S , 2007, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[24]  B. Persson,et al.  Quantitative membrane proteomics applying narrow range peptide isoelectric focusing for studies of small cell lung cancer resistance mechanisms , 2008, Proteomics.

[25]  S. Alvarez,et al.  Comprehensive comparison of iTRAQ and label-free LC-based quantitative proteomics approaches using two Chlamydomonas reinhardtii strains of interest for biofuels engineering. , 2012, Journal of proteome research.

[26]  J. Ellenberg,et al.  The quantitative proteome of a human cell line , 2011, Molecular systems biology.

[27]  Rachel M. Adams,et al.  Systematic comparison of label-free, metabolic labeling, and isobaric chemical labeling for quantitative proteomics on LTQ Orbitrap Velos. , 2012, Journal of proteome research.

[28]  Yan Li,et al.  Optimized proteomic analysis of a mouse model of cerebellar dysfunction using amine‐specific isobaric tags , 2006, Proteomics.

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

[30]  R. Branca,et al.  Enhanced Information Output From Shotgun Proteomics Data by Protein Quantification and Peptide Quality Control (PQPQ)* , 2011, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[31]  Terry M Therneau,et al.  Relative quantification: characterization of bias, variability and fold changes in mass spectrometry data from iTRAQ-labeled peptides. , 2011, Journal of proteome research.

[32]  Ross Ihaka,et al.  Gentleman R: R: A language for data analysis and graphics , 1996 .