Literature DB >> 20382981

Addressing accuracy and precision issues in iTRAQ quantitation.

Natasha A Karp1, Wolfgang Huber, Pawel G Sadowski, Philip D Charles, Svenja V Hester, Kathryn S Lilley.   

Abstract

iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative or absolute quantitation) is a mass spectrometry technology that allows quantitative comparison of protein abundance by measuring peak intensities of reporter ions released from iTRAQ-tagged peptides by fragmentation during MS/MS. However, current data analysis techniques for iTRAQ struggle to report reliable relative protein abundance estimates and suffer with problems of precision and accuracy. The precision of the data is affected by variance heterogeneity: low signal data have higher relative variability; however, low abundance peptides dominate data sets. Accuracy is compromised as ratios are compressed toward 1, leading to underestimation of the ratio. This study investigated both issues and proposed a methodology that combines the peptide measurements to give a robust protein estimate even when the data for the protein are sparse or at low intensity. Our data indicated that ratio compression arises from contamination during precursor ion selection, which occurs at a consistent proportion within an experiment and thus results in a linear relationship between expected and observed ratios. We proposed that a correction factor can be calculated from spiked proteins at known ratios. Then we demonstrated that variance heterogeneity is present in iTRAQ data sets irrespective of the analytical packages, LC-MS/MS instrumentation, and iTRAQ labeling kit (4-plex or 8-plex) used. We proposed using an additive-multiplicative error model for peak intensities in MS/MS quantitation and demonstrated that a variance-stabilizing normalization is able to address the error structure and stabilize the variance across the entire intensity range. The resulting uniform variance structure simplifies the downstream analysis. Heterogeneity of variance consistent with an additive-multiplicative model has been reported in other MS-based quantitation including fields outside of proteomics; consequently the variance-stabilizing normalization methodology has the potential to increase the capabilities of MS in quantitation across diverse areas of biology and chemistry.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20382981      PMCID: PMC2938101          DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M900628-MCP200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics        ISSN: 1535-9476            Impact factor:   5.911


  38 in total

1.  Fluorescence two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry based proteomic analysis of Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Jun X Yan; Angelica T Devenish; Robin Wait; Tim Stone; Steve Lewis; Sue Fowler
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.984

2.  Quantitative proteomic analysis using isobaric protein tags enables rapid comparison of changes in transcript and protein levels in transformed cells.

Authors:  Richard D Unwin; Andrew Pierce; Rod B Watson; David W Sternberg; Anthony D Whetton
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2005-04-22       Impact factor: 5.911

3.  Search for cancer markers from endometrial tissues using differentially labeled tags iTRAQ and cICAT with multidimensional liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Leroi DeSouza; Georg Diehl; Mary Joe Rodrigues; Jingzhong Guo; Alexander D Romaschin; Terence J Colgan; K W Michael Siu
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.466

4.  Comparative study of three proteomic quantitative methods, DIGE, cICAT, and iTRAQ, using 2D gel- or LC-MALDI TOF/TOF.

Authors:  Wells W Wu; Guanghui Wang; Seung Joon Baek; Rong-Fong Shen
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.466

5.  A noise model for mass spectrometry based proteomics.

Authors:  Peicheng Du; Gustavo Stolovitzky; Peter Horvatovich; Rainer Bischoff; Jihyeon Lim; Frank Suits
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Proteolytic 18O labeling for comparative proteomics: model studies with two serotypes of adenovirus.

Authors:  X Yao; A Freas; J Ramirez; P A Demirev; C Fenselau
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2001-07-01       Impact factor: 6.986

7.  Quantitative proteome analysis by solid-phase isotope tagging and mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Huilin Zhou; Jeffrey A Ranish; Julian D Watts; Ruedi Aebersold
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 54.908

8.  Proteome analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae under metal stress by two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis.

Authors:  Yi Hu; Gang Wang; Grace Y J Chen; Xin Fu; Shao Q Yao
Journal:  Electrophoresis       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.535

9.  Gel-free and gel-based proteomics in Bacillus subtilis: a comparative study.

Authors:  Susanne Wolff; Andreas Otto; Dirk Albrecht; Jianru Stahl Zeng; Knut Büttner; Matthias Glückmann; Michael Hecker; Dörte Becher
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2006-03-21       Impact factor: 5.911

10.  i-Tracker: for quantitative proteomics using iTRAQ.

Authors:  Ian P Shadforth; Tom P J Dunkley; Kathryn S Lilley; Conrad Bessant
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2005-10-20       Impact factor: 3.969

View more
  204 in total

1.  Identification of miR-193b targets in breast cancer cells and systems biological analysis of their functional impact.

Authors:  Suvi-Katri Leivonen; Anne Rokka; Päivi Ostling; Pekka Kohonen; Garry L Corthals; Olli Kallioniemi; Merja Perälä
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 5.911

2.  Taming the isobaric tagging elephant in the room in quantitative proteomics.

Authors:  Andy Christoforou; Kathryn S Lilley
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 28.547

3.  Isobaric labeling and data normalization without requiring protein quantitation.

Authors:  Phillip D Kim; Bhavinkumar B Patel; Anthony T Yeung
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2012-04

4.  Extending the dynamic range of label-free mass spectrometric quantification of affinity purifications.

Authors:  Wolfgang Bildl; Alexander Haupt; Catrin S Müller; Martin L Biniossek; Jörg Oliver Thumfart; Björn Hüber; Bernd Fakler; Uwe Schulte
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 5.911

5.  Simultaneous analysis of relative protein expression levels across multiple samples using iTRAQ isobaric tags with 2D nano LC-MS/MS.

Authors:  Richard D Unwin; John R Griffiths; Anthony D Whetton
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2010-08-26       Impact factor: 13.491

Review 6.  A Biologist's Field Guide to Multiplexed Quantitative Proteomics.

Authors:  Corey E Bakalarski; Donald S Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 5.911

7.  Multiplexed, Quantitative Workflow for Sensitive Biomarker Discovery in Plasma Yields Novel Candidates for Early Myocardial Injury.

Authors:  Hasmik Keshishian; Michael W Burgess; Michael A Gillette; Philipp Mertins; Karl R Clauser; D R Mani; Eric W Kuhn; Laurie A Farrell; Robert E Gerszten; Steven A Carr
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 5.911

Review 8.  A Review on Quantitative Multiplexed Proteomics.

Authors:  Nishant Pappireddi; Lance Martin; Martin Wühr
Journal:  Chembiochem       Date:  2019-04-18       Impact factor: 3.164

9.  Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Small and Large Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) Reveals Enrichment of Adhesion Proteins in Small EVs.

Authors:  Lizandra Jimenez; Hui Yu; Andrew J McKenzie; Jeffrey L Franklin; James G Patton; Qi Liu; Alissa M Weaver
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.466

10.  Strain Differences in Presynaptic Function: PROTEOMICS, ULTRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOLOGY OF HIPPOCAMPAL SYNAPSES IN DBA/2J AND C57Bl/6J MICE.

Authors:  A Mariette Lenselink; Diana C Rotaru; Ka Wan Li; Pim van Nierop; Priyanka Rao-Ruiz; Maarten Loos; Roel van der Schors; Yvonne Gouwenberg; Joke Wortel; Huibert D Mansvelder; August B Smit; Sabine Spijker
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 5.157

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.