Benchmarking stable isotope labeling based quantitative proteomics.

Several quantitative mass spectrometry based technologies have recently evolved to interrogate the complexity, interconnectivity and dynamic nature of proteomes. Currently, the most popular methods use either metabolic or chemical isotope labeling with MS based quantification or chemical labeling using isobaric tags with MS/MS based quantification. Here, we assess the performance of three of the most popular approaches through systematic independent large scale quantitative proteomics experiments, comparing SILAC, dimethyl and TMT labeling strategies. Although all three methods have their strengths and weaknesses, our data indicate that all three can reach a similar depth in number of identified proteins using a classical (MS2 based) shotgun approach. TMT quantification using only MS2 is heavily affected by co-isolation leading to compromised precision and accuracy. This issue may be partly resolved by using an MS3 based acquisition; however, at the cost of a significant reduction in number of proteins quantified. Interestingly, SILAC and chemical labeling with MS based quantification produce almost indistinguishable results, independent of which database search algorithm used.

[1]  M. Münchbach,et al.  Quantitation and facilitated de novo sequencing of proteins by isotopic N-terminal labeling of peptides with a fragmentation-directing moiety. , 2000, Analytical chemistry.

[2]  Jeroen Krijgsveld,et al.  Metabolic labeling of C. elegans and D. melanogaster for quantitative proteomics , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[3]  S. Mohammed,et al.  In-depth Quantitative Cardiac Proteomics Combining Electron Transfer Dissociation and the Metalloendopeptidase Lys-N with the SILAC Mouse* , 2011, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[4]  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.

[5]  K. R. Woods,et al.  A computer program for predicting protein antigenic determinants. , 1983, Molecular immunology.

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

[7]  M. Westphall,et al.  Gas-phase purification enables accurate, large-scale, multiplexed proteome quantification with isobaric tagging , 2011, Nature Methods.

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

[9]  Howard Colman,et al.  Quantitative phosphoproteomic analysis of the STAT3/IL-6/HIF1alpha signaling network: an initial study in GSC11 glioblastoma stem cells. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

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

[11]  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.

[12]  J. Yates,et al.  Metabolic labeling of mammalian organisms with stable isotopes for quantitative proteomic analysis. , 2004, Analytical chemistry.

[13]  John R Yates,et al.  Cancer proteomics by quantitative shotgun proteomics , 2007, Molecular oncology.

[14]  Stefan Pieper,et al.  Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics. , 2009, Methods in molecular biology.

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

[16]  S. Brunak,et al.  Quantitative Phosphoproteomics Reveals Widespread Full Phosphorylation Site Occupancy During Mitosis , 2010, Science Signaling.

[17]  M. Mann,et al.  Quantitative, high-resolution proteomics for data-driven systems biology. , 2011, Annual review of biochemistry.

[18]  F. Regnier,et al.  Quantification in proteomics through stable isotope coding: a review. , 2004, Journal of proteome research.

[19]  M. Mann,et al.  Super-SILAC mix for quantitative proteomics of human tumor tissue , 2010, Nature Methods.

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

[21]  Bernhard Kuster,et al.  Quantitative chemical proteomics reveals mechanisms of action of clinical ABL kinase inhibitors , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[22]  H. Mansvelder,et al.  Lasting synaptic changes underlie attention deficits caused by nicotine exposure during adolescence , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  Nikola Tolić,et al.  High throughput proteome-wide precision measurements of protein expression using mass spectrometry , 1999 .

[24]  Albert J R Heck,et al.  Improving SRM assay development: a global comparison between triple quadrupole, ion trap, and higher energy CID peptide fragmentation spectra. , 2011, Journal of proteome research.

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

[26]  M. Mann,et al.  SILAC Mouse for Quantitative Proteomics Uncovers Kindlin-3 as an Essential Factor for Red Blood Cell Function , 2008, Cell.

[27]  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.

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

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

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

[31]  A. Heck,et al.  Probing the proteome response to toluene exposure in the solvent tolerant Pseudomonas putida S12. , 2011, Journal of proteome research.

[32]  John R Yates,et al.  A computational approach to correct arginine-to-proline conversion in quantitative proteomics , 2009, Nature Methods.

[33]  X. Yao,et al.  Proteolytic 18O labeling for comparative proteomics: model studies with two serotypes of adenovirus. , 2001, Analytical chemistry.

[34]  M. Mann,et al.  Large-scale phosphosite quantification in tissues by a spike-in SILAC method , 2011, Nature Methods.

[35]  Jeroen Krijgsveld,et al.  An experimental correction for arginine-to-proline conversion artifacts in SILAC-based quantitative proteomics , 2007, Nature Methods.

[36]  John R. Yates,et al.  The biological impact of mass-spectrometry-based proteomics , 2007, Nature.

[37]  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.

[38]  Reinout Raijmakers,et al.  Multiplex peptide stable isotope dimethyl labeling for quantitative proteomics , 2009, Nature Protocols.

[39]  S. Elledge,et al.  A quantitative atlas of mitotic phosphorylation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[40]  B. Doble,et al.  Prevention of Amino Acid Conversion in SILAC Experiments with Embryonic Stem Cells * , 2008, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[41]  Karl Mechtler,et al.  Peptide Labeling with Isobaric Tags Yields Higher Identification Rates Using iTRAQ 4-Plex Compared to TMT 6-Plex and iTRAQ 8-Plex on LTQ Orbitrap , 2010, Analytical chemistry.

[42]  Alexander van Oudenaarden,et al.  The Lgr5 Intestinal Stem Cell Signature: Robust Expression of Proposed Quiescent ' Þ 4' Cell Markers , 2022 .

[43]  A. Hyman,et al.  Quantitative Interaction Proteomics and Genome-wide Profiling of Epigenetic Histone Marks and Their Readers , 2010, Cell.

[44]  C. Mummery,et al.  Phosphorylation dynamics during early differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. , 2009, Cell stem cell.

[45]  V. Wysocki,et al.  Mobile and localized protons: a framework for understanding peptide dissociation. , 2000, Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS.

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