Compositional Proteomics: Effects of Spatial Constraints on Protein Quantification Utilizing Isobaric Tags

Mass spectrometry (MS) has become an accessible tool for whole proteome quantitation with the ability to characterize protein expression across thousands of proteins within a single experiment. A subset of MS quantification methods (e.g., SILAC and label-free) monitor the relative intensity of intact peptides, where thousands of measurements can be made from a single mass spectrum. An alternative approach, isobaric labeling, enables precise quantification of multiple samples simultaneously through unique and sample specific mass reporter ions. Consequently, in a single scan, the quantitative signal comes from a limited number of spectral features (≤11). The signal observed for these features is constrained by automatic gain control, forcing codependence of concurrent signals. The study of constrained outcomes primarily belongs to the field of compositional data analysis. We show experimentally that isobaric tag proteomics data are inherently compositional and highlight the implications for data analysis and interpretation. We present a new statistical model and accompanying software that improves estimation accuracy and the ability to detect changes in protein abundance. Finally, we demonstrate a unique compositional effect on proteins with infinite changes. We conclude that many infinite changes will appear small and that the magnitude of these estimates is highly dependent on experimental design.

[1]  Steven P Gygi,et al.  Quantitative mass spectrometry-based multiplexing compares the abundance of 5000 S. cerevisiae proteins across 10 carbon sources. , 2016, Journal of proteomics.

[2]  Edward L. Huttlin,et al.  MultiNotch MS3 Enables Accurate, Sensitive, and Multiplexed Detection of Differential Expression across Cancer Cell Line Proteomes , 2014, Analytical chemistry.

[3]  Joseph Hilbe,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2009 .

[4]  Edward L. Huttlin,et al.  A Tissue-Specific Atlas of Mouse Protein Phosphorylation and Expression , 2010, Cell.

[5]  T. Therneau,et al.  A statistical model for iTRAQ data analysis. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.

[6]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R , 2005, Bioinform..

[7]  G. Mateu-Figueras,et al.  Isometric Logratio Transformations for Compositional Data Analysis , 2003 .

[8]  S. Gygi,et al.  Control of immune ligands by members of a cytomegalovirus gene expansion suppresses natural killer cell activation , 2017, eLife.

[9]  Steven P. Gygi,et al.  A Triple Knockout (TKO) Proteomics Standard for Diagnosing Ion Interference in Isobaric Labeling Experiments , 2016, Journal of The American Society for Mass Spectrometry.

[10]  D R Mani,et al.  iTRAQ Labeling is Superior to mTRAQ for Quantitative Global Proteomics and Phosphoproteomics* , 2011, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[11]  John Aitchison,et al.  The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data , 1986 .

[12]  Joshua E. Elias,et al.  Target-Decoy Search Strategy for Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics , 2010, Proteome Bioinformatics.

[13]  Z. Cai,et al.  Activation of c-Abl Kinase Potentiates the Anti-myeloma Drug Lenalidomide by Promoting DDA1 Protein Recruitment to the CRL4 Ubiquitin Ligase* , 2017, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

[15]  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.

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

[17]  M. Mann,et al.  Stop and go extraction tips for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization, nanoelectrospray, and LC/MS sample pretreatment in proteomics. , 2003, Analytical chemistry.

[18]  B. Kuster,et al.  Measuring and managing ratio compression for accurate iTRAQ/TMT quantification. , 2013, Journal of proteome research.

[19]  John K Kruschke,et al.  Bayesian data analysis. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[20]  Edward L. Huttlin,et al.  Quantitative Temporal Viromics: An Approach to Investigate Host-Pathogen Interaction , 2014, Cell.

[21]  Conrad von Schubert,et al.  Evaluation and Improvement of Quantification Accuracy in Isobaric Mass Tag-Based Protein Quantification Experiments. , 2016, Journal of proteome research.

[22]  Steven P Gygi,et al.  A probability-based approach for high-throughput protein phosphorylation analysis and site localization , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[23]  Alexander S. Banks,et al.  Effects of MEK inhibitors GSK1120212 and PD0325901 in vivo using 10‐plex quantitative proteomics and phosphoproteomics , 2015, Proteomics.

[24]  S. Gygi,et al.  Nicotine‐induced protein expression profiling reveals mutually altered proteins across four human cell lines , 2017, Proteomics.

[25]  V. Pawlowsky-Glahn,et al.  Geometric approach to statistical analysis on the simplex , 2001 .

[26]  Jiqiang Guo,et al.  Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. , 2017, Journal of statistical software.

[27]  S. Gygi,et al.  ms3 eliminates ratio distortion in isobaric multiplexed quantitative , 2011 .

[28]  Steven P Gygi,et al.  Target-decoy search strategy for increased confidence in large-scale protein identifications by mass spectrometry , 2007, Nature Methods.