Mass spectrometric strategies to identify protein subpopulations involved in specific biological functions rely on covalently tagging biotin to proteins using various chemical modification methods. The biotin tag is primarily used for enrichment of the targeted subpopulation for subsequent mass spectrometry (MS) analysis. A limitation of these strategies is that MS analysis does not easily discriminate unlabeled contaminants from the labeled protein subpopulation under study. To solve this problem, we developed a flexible method that only relies on direct MS detection of biotin-tagged proteins called "Direct Detection of Biotin-containing Tags" (DiDBiT). Compared with conventional targeted proteomic strategies, DiDBiT improves direct detection of biotinylated proteins ∼200 fold. We show that DiDBiT is applicable to several protein labeling protocols in cell culture and in vivo using cell permeable NHS-biotin and incorporation of the noncanonical amino acid, azidohomoalanine (AHA), into newly synthesized proteins, followed by click chemistry tagging with biotin. We demonstrate that DiDBiT improves the direct detection of biotin-tagged newly synthesized peptides more than 20-fold compared to conventional methods. With the increased sensitivity afforded by DiDBiT, we demonstrate the MS detection of newly synthesized proteins labeled in vivo in the rodent nervous system with unprecedented temporal resolution as short as 3 h.
Mass spectrometric strategies to identify protein subpopulations involved in specific biological functions rely on covalently tagging biotin to proteins using various chemical modification methods. The biotin tag is primarily used for enrichment of the targeted subpopulation for subsequent mass spectrometry (MS) analysis. A limitation of these strategies is that MS analysis does not easily discriminate unlabeled contaminants from the labeled protein subpopulation under study. To solve this problem, we developed a flexible method that only relies on direct MS detection of biotin-tagged proteins called "Direct Detection of Biotin-containing Tags" (DiDBiT). Compared with conventional targeted proteomic strategies, DiDBiT improves direct detection of biotinylated proteins ∼200 fold. We show that DiDBiT is applicable to several protein labeling protocols in cell culture and in vivo using cell permeable NHS-biotin and incorporation of the noncanonical amino acid, azidohomoalanine (AHA), into newly synthesized proteins, followed by click chemistry tagging with biotin. We demonstrate that DiDBiT improves the direct detection of biotin-tagged newly synthesized peptides more than 20-fold compared to conventional methods. With the increased sensitivity afforded by DiDBiT, we demonstrate the MS detection of newly synthesized proteins labeled in vivo in the rodent nervous system with unprecedented temporal resolution as short as 3 h.
Proteome investigation
has been significantly advanced by analysis
of targeted subpopulations of proteins covalently labeled with biotin-containing
tags.[1−9] Enrichment of biotinylated proteins using avidin or its homologues
conjugated with bead matrices allows candidate identification by mass
spectrometry (MS)[5] (Figure 1). For example, succinimide esters containing biotin that
attach covalently to free amine groups have been used to study cell
surface proteins in vitro and in vivo.[10−12] Recently, a novel genetic-chemical
strategy has targeted a biotinylating enzyme to dissect the proteome
of specific intracellular organelles.[13] Furthermore, using a promiscuous biotin ligase, protein interactions
and complexes can be studied at the proteomic level.[14] Another major application of protein biotinylation is bio-orthogonal
metabolic labeling, for instance, to detect newly synthesized proteins
by incorporation of azide- or alkyne-containing noncanonical amino
acids,[15] followed by copper catalyzed azide–alkyne
cycloaddition (CuAAC) with biotin-containing tags.[16,17] These chemical tagging methods are useful to target selected protein
subpopulations for subsequent enrichment and MS analysis, but require
the identification and discrimination of true candidates from background
contaminating proteins. The contaminating proteins may result from
nonspecific interactions with the bead matrix or nonspecific and specific
interactions with the biotinylated proteins. After enrichment of biotinylated
proteins from the complex mixture, the proteins are usually eluted
off the beads followed by subsequent digestion or digested directly
on the beads. Using either of these popular methods, the detection
of the biotin modification on the peptides that serves as unambiguous
identification of real “hits” and distinguishes them
from contaminant proteins is poorly achieved.[13,18−20] To alleviate this problem, additional MS analyses
are typically performed on mock experiments, expensive colabeling
reagents are added, or extensive non-MS validation is performed to
distinguish biotinylated proteins from contaminants.[10,13,18,21] These complex and time-consuming analyses to filter contaminant
proteins are crucial for the accurate identification and assessment
of the targeted proteome subpopulation.
Figure 1
Schematic of DiDBiT and
conventional strategies for sample preparation
and analysis of purified biotinylated proteins. Conventional methods,
schematized on the left in steps 1A–3A, involve incubating
a complex mixture of proteins with NeutrAvidin beads (step 1A), washing
the beads to remove unlabeled proteins (step 2A), elution of labeled
proteins and protease digestion of eluted proteins (step 3A), or direct
protease digestion of proteins bound to beads (step 3Ai). Note that
labeled proteins may be a minority within the sample and that nonspecific
or indirect binding to the beads may further decrease the representation
of the labeled proteins. Coelution and codigestion of both labeled
and unlabeled proteins often produces a mixture in which tagged peptides
are too dilute for direct detection of tags (A and 3Ai; see outcome
in Figure 3a). DiDBiT is schematized on the
right in steps 1B–3B, showing the improvement in enrichment
(step 1B), recovery (step 2B), and analysis (step 3B) of biotinylated
peptides. Complete protease digestion of the input material allows
the incubation of highly concentrated peptide mixtures with NeutrAvidin
beads due the higher solubility of peptide mixtures in aqueous buffer
(PBS) compared to their input protein extracts (step 1B). Washes to
remove nonspecific bound peptides can be done in 5–10% acetonitrile
in PBS (step 2B). Peptides bound to NeutrAvidin are efficiently eluted
by boiling in TFA/FA/acetonitrile. This sample preparation protocol
significantly increases labeled/nonlabeled peptide ratio (step 3B;
see output results in Figure 3b). Biotinylated
peptides were consistently detected using DiDBiT. This peptide elution
strategy can also be used after the conventional on-bead digestion
to release the bound peptides from the resin after trypsinization
(A3ii or “on-bead release 2”) (see output results in
Figure 3a).
Schematic of DiDBiT and
conventional strategies for sample preparation
and analysis of purified biotinylated proteins. Conventional methods,
schematized on the left in steps 1A–3A, involve incubating
a complex mixture of proteins with NeutrAvidin beads (step 1A), washing
the beads to remove unlabeled proteins (step 2A), elution of labeled
proteins and protease digestion of eluted proteins (step 3A), or direct
protease digestion of proteins bound to beads (step 3Ai). Note that
labeled proteins may be a minority within the sample and that nonspecific
or indirect binding to the beads may further decrease the representation
of the labeled proteins. Coelution and codigestion of both labeled
and unlabeled proteins often produces a mixture in which tagged peptides
are too dilute for direct detection of tags (A and 3Ai; see outcome
in Figure 3a). DiDBiT is schematized on the
right in steps 1B–3B, showing the improvement in enrichment
(step 1B), recovery (step 2B), and analysis (step 3B) of biotinylated
peptides. Complete protease digestion of the input material allows
the incubation of highly concentrated peptide mixtures with NeutrAvidin
beads due the higher solubility of peptide mixtures in aqueous buffer
(PBS) compared to their input protein extracts (step 1B). Washes to
remove nonspecific bound peptides can be done in 5–10% acetonitrile
in PBS (step 2B). Peptides bound to NeutrAvidin are efficiently eluted
by boiling in TFA/FA/acetonitrile. This sample preparation protocol
significantly increases labeled/nonlabeled peptide ratio (step 3B;
see output results in Figure 3b). Biotinylated
peptides were consistently detected using DiDBiT. This peptide elution
strategy can also be used after the conventional on-bead digestion
to release the bound peptides from the resin after trypsinization
(A3ii or “on-bead release 2”) (see output results in
Figure 3a).
Figure 3
Comparison of DiDBiT with conventional methods
to identify biotin-labeled
peptides from HEK cells labeled with NHS-biotin. (a) Starting with
equal amounts of material (6 mg of protein lysate) and using reverse-phase
separation coupled to MS analysis, we compared DiDBiT and 2 protein
enrichment methods (outputs of the fractions in 3A, 3Ai, 3Aii, and
3B described in Figure 1). (b–d) Venn
diagrams showing the overlap of modified proteins detected with the
DiDBiT strategy and unmodified proteins detected with protein elution
(b) on-bead digestion (c) and elution of bound peptides in the “on-bead
digestion release 2” fraction (d). The modified peptides detected
using DiDBiT are highly overlapping (88.2%) with the modified peptides
detected in the on-bead digestion release 2 fraction, however DiDBiT
detected 10× more biotin modified proteins (d). (e) Plot of the
number of peptides identified per protein for the three methods. Similar
coverage per protein was obtained with DiDBiT, on-bead digestion,
and protein elution.
Here we present a new strategy named Direct Detection of
Biotin-containing
Tags (DiDBiT) to improve the detection of the biotin modification
on peptides for in vitro and in vivo applications. Unlike commonly
used strategies, in DiDBiT proteins are digested prior to the enrichment
of the biotin-tagged peptides. The reduced sample complexity in the
mass spectrometer increases the yield of enriched biotinylated peptides,
which, together with direct detection of the biotin modification,
significantly increases identification of the biotin-labeled proteins.
We compare DiDBiT with conventional strategies of MS sample preparation
from cultured cells labeled with NHS-biotin, which produces abundant
biotin label, and observe several fold increased detection of biotinylated
peptides. We next tested the ability of DiDBiT to improve detection
of a targeted population with much lower abundance, by labeling newly
synthesized proteins with azidohomoalanine (AHA), followed by click
chemistry tagging with biotin. We demonstrate that DiDBiT improves
the direct detection of biotin-tagged newly synthesized proteins compared
to conventional methods without the need of additional experiments
or expensive colabeling reagents.[21−23] With this increased
sensitivity, we demonstrate the MS detection of newly synthesized
proteins labeled in vivo in the rodent with temporal resolution as
short as 3 h.
Experimental Procedures
Biotin-Labeling Procedures
for HEK Cells and Retina
Biotinylation of HEK 293T Cells with NHS-Biotin
HEK
293T cells were grown to 100% confluence in 75 or 150 cm2 flasks, dissociated, and resuspended with TrypLE, transferred to
15 mL falcon tubes, centrifuged for 5 min at 1000 rpm at room temperature,
and washed three times in Dulbecco’s modified PBS (DPBS, Gibco).
Cells were incubated in suspension with 1 mg/mL of EZ-link NHS-biotin
in 10 mL of DPBS at 4 °C with gentle rotation. Cells were washed
three times in DPBS, pelleted by centrifugation, and frozen on dry
ice. The biotinylated cell pellets were homogenized in RIPA buffer
containing 1% NP40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS, 150 mM NaCl,
1 mM EDTA, and 25 mM TrisHCl, pH 7.4. Lysates were rotated at 4 °C
for 30 min and centrifuged at 10 000g for
10 min at 4 °C to remove DNA and cell debris. After measuring
the protein concentration using the DC Protein Assay Kit II (Bio-Rad),
the lysates were aliquoted by transferring 1–2 mg of protein
to 2 mL eppendorf tubes.
Labeling Newly Synthesized Proteins in Cultured
Cells with AHA
HEK 293T cells were grown to 100% confluence
in 75 cm2 flasks in growth media (DMEM media supplemented
with 20% fetal bovine
serum, containing among other amino acids, 0.2 mM methionine), in
a 37 °C incubator in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 in air. Prior to AHA labeling, media was replaced with HEPES buffered
saline (HBS) supplemented with 4 mM CaCl2, 4 mM MgCl2, and 60 mM glucose (HBS + Ca + Mg + Gluc) and flasks were
returned to the incubator for 30 min to deplete methionine from the
medium. Media was changed again for HBS + Ca + Mg + Gluc with 4 mM
AHA, and cells were incubated for 1 h at 37 °C. In some experiments,
8 mM AHA was added to the growth media without depleting methionine
(Supporting Information Figure 1b). After
1 h incubation with AHA, cells were dissociated with TrypLE (Gibco),
transferred to 15 mL falcon tubes, centrifuged for 5 min at 1000 rpm
at room temperature, and washed three times in DPBS (Gibco). Cells
were pelleted by centrifugation and stored at −80 °C until
the click reaction with biotin-alkyne was performed, as described
below.
Intraocular Administration of AHA
All protocols were
approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at the Scripps Research
Institute. Male Wistar rats around 45 days old were anesthetized by
injection of 75 mg/kg ketamine mixed with 5 mg/kg xylazine. To label
newly synthesized proteins in the retina in vivo, we injected AHA
(Anaspec) in phosphate buffer, pH 7 intraocularly. In preliminary
experiments, in order to determine which dose achieves optimal AHA
incorporation into proteins, we injected each eye with ∼5 μL
of 4, 100, or 400 mM AHA in PBS, which correspond to doses of 14,
350, 1400 μg/kg, respectively. Intraocular injections were done
using a pulled glass micropipette attached to a Picosprizer III microinjection
system (Parker) as described previously.[24] Based on published work estimating the dilution volume in the vitreous
of 2 month old rats,[25] we estimate an ∼6.5×
dilution of injected AHA in the vitreous, resulting in an estimated
66 mM AHA concentration in the vitreous after 5 μL of 400 mM
AHA stock injection and 0.66 mM after 5 μL of 4 mM AHA stock
injection. For the mass spectrometry experiments 5 μL of 400
mM AHA solution was injected into each eye of 12 animals. Ointment
containing topical anesthetic was applied to the injection site. After
the procedure, animals were given 0.1 mg/kg Atipamezole, ip, to facilitate
recovery from anesthesia. Six animals were euthanized in a CO2 chamber 3 h after the eye injections, and 6 animals were
given a second dose of 400 mM AHA 20 h after the first eye injection
and euthanized 3 h later. Eyes and optic nerves were dissected immediately
after euthanasia and frozen in an isopentane/dry ice bath and stored
at −80 °C. Eyes were thawed on ice and retinas were dissected
and frozen again on dry ice. Retinas and optic nerves were homogenized
in 0.5% SDS in PBS to extract AHA-labeled proteins and perform the
click chemistry reaction, as described below.
Click Reaction
for Biotinylation of AHA-Labeled Proteins from
HEK Cell or Retina Lysates
AHA-labeled HEK cell pellets or
neuronal tissue (optic nerves or retinas) were lysed in 0.5% SDS in
PBS plus a cocktail of endogenous protease inhibitors (Complete Protease
Inhibitor Cocktail Tablets, Roche) by homogenizing and sonicating
with 10 pulses using a tip sonicator (Sonic Dismembrator model 100,
Fisher Scientific). Samples were boiled for 10 min and cooled to room
temperature. Any remaining insoluble material was resuspended with
additional sonication pulses. Protein concentration in the suspension
was measured, and aliquots of 1.5 mg of protein suspension were transferred
to eppendorf tubes. AHA that was incorporated into proteins was labeled
with PEG4 carboxamide-Propargyl Biotin (biotin-alkyne) (Invitrogen)
by click chemistry reaction performed in the total protein suspension
as described previously.[9,17] Centrifugation steps
that can result in loss of AHA-labeled material were avoided to maximize
coverage of AHA biotin labeled protein by MS. For each reaction, we
used an aliquot of 1.5 mg of protein suspension, adding PBS to reach
346 μL before adding the click reaction reagents. We added the
following reagents in sequence, vigorously vortexing after each addition:
30 μL of 1.7 mM tris[(1-benzyl-1H-1,2,3-triazol-4-yl)methyl]amine
(TBTA) (Sigma) dissolved in 4:1 tert-butanol/DMSO
(Sigma), 8 μL of 50 mM CuSO4 dissolved in ultrapure
water (Sigma), 8 μL of 5 mM of PEG4 carboxamide-Propargyl Biotin
(biotin-alkyne) (Invitrogen) dissolved in DMSO, and 8 μL of
50 mM TCEP (Sigma) dissolved in water. The click reactions were incubated
at room temperature for 1–2 h or overnight with gentle rotation
at 4 °C. After the completion of each click reaction, samples
were aliquoted by transferring 200 μL of each click reaction
suspension to 2 mL eppendorf tubes. Proteins were precipitated with
methanol/chloroform, as described below. To assess the efficiency
of the click reaction and sample quality for MudPIT detection, 10
μL of each reaction was collected for Western blot detection.
DiDBiT Protocol
Protein Precipitation for DiDBiT
Protein aliquots containing
NHS-biotin or AHA-biotin labeled proteins were precipitated by adding
three volumes of methanol, one volume of chloroform, and three volumes
of water, vortexed, and centrifuged at 15 000g for 2 min at room temperature. The aqueous and organic phases were
removed carefully from the tube without disturbing the protein disc
at the interface. Protein pellets were washed once by adding three
volumes of methanol and centrifuging at 15 000g for 2 min. Pellets containing biotinylated proteins were air-dried
for 10 min before total protein digestion as described bellow.
Protein
Digestion for DiDBiT
Protein pellets were digested
with trypsin and ProteaseMax surfactant trypsin enhancer (Promega)
in all experiments following DiDBiT, except were indicated below.
We resuspended the protein pellet in 200 μL of a buffer containing
4 M urea, 50 mM NH4HCO3, and 0.1% ProteaseMax
with a brief sonication pulse. The protein suspension was reduced
by adding tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP, Sigma) to 5 mM final
concentration. The solution was incubated at 55 °C with vigorous
orbital shaking using a Thermomixer (Eppendorf). Protein alkylation
was done by adding iodoacetamide (Sigma) to 10 mM final concentration
and incubating with vigorous shaking in the dark for 20 min. To digest
the proteins, we added in the following order: 150 μL of 50
mM NH4HCO3, 2.5 μL of 1% ProteaseMAX dissolved
in 50 mM NH4HCO3, and 1:100 (enzyme/protein,
w/w) sequencing grade trypsin (Promega) to a final reaction volume
of 500 μL. The digestion reactions were incubated for 3 h at
37 °C with vigorous orbital shaking and stored at −80
°C until enrichment of biotinylated peptides.In one experiment,
proteins pellets from NHS-biotin labeled cells were digested with
Proteinase K (Roche) as described.[26] The
pellets were solubilized by vigorously vortexing and pipetting in
1 mL of buffer containing 8 M urea and 0.2 M NaHCO3, pH
= 11. Solubilized proteins were reduced by adding TCEP to 5 mM final
concentration while rotating during 20 min and alkylated by adding
20 μL of 0.5 M iodoacetamide to 10 mM final concentration while
rotating for 20 min in the dark. Proteins were digested by incubating
with 1:50 (enzyme/protein, w/w) Proteinase K for 5 h at 37 °C
with vigorous orbital shaking.
Enrichment of Biotinylated
Peptides for DiDBiT
The
protein digestion reactions from both NHS-biotin and biotin-AHA labeled
proteins were stopped by adding trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) (Sigma)
to 0.1% final concentration. Samples were centrifuged at 20 000g for 20 min at room temperature to remove undigested insoluble
material and supernatant containing the peptide mixture was collected
in an eppendorf tube. Any remaining peptides in the insoluble pellet
were extracted by adding 0.5 mL of 0.1% TFA in water, resuspending
the pellet by pipetting and centrifuging again for 20 min. The supernatant
was pooled with the previous one before desalting using Sep-Pak tC18
solid-phase extraction cartridges (Waters) as described previously.[27] We used the cartridges at 20% capacity. A maximum
of 20 mg of peptides was loaded onto a 100 mg capacity cartridge.
Prior to loading the mixture of peptides, the cartridges were washed
sequentially with 3 mL of acetonitrile, 3 mL of 0.5% acetic acid,
50% acetonitrile in water, and 3 mL of 0.1% TFA in water. After loading
the peptide mixtures, the cartridges were washed with 3 mL of 0.1%
TFA and then with 0.250 mL of 0.5% acetic acid in water. The peptides
were eluted into a clean tube with 1 mL of 0.5% acetic acid, 80% acetonitrile
in water, and dried in eppendorf tubes in a Speed Vac (Thermo). Ten
milligrams of dried peptide pellet was solubilized in 1 mL of PBS
and incubated with a 200 μL slurry of NeutrAvidin beads (Pierce)
for 1 h at room temperature. The beads were precipitated by centrifugation
at 1000g for 5 min and flow through was collected
for MS analysis of unbound peptides. Beads were washed three times
by adding 1 mL of PBS with 1 mL of 5% acetonitrile in PBS, and a last
wash in ultrapure water. Excess liquid was completely removed from
the beads using a micropipette, and biotinylated peptides were eluted
by adding 0.3 mL of solution containing 0.2% TFA, 0.1% formic acid,
and 80% acetonitrile in water. The beads were centrifuged at 1000g and the first elution of biotinylated peptides was transferred
to an eppendorf tube. A second elution of 0.3 mL was boiled for 5
min for maximum release of peptides from the beads. A total of 10
elutions were collected and dried separately in a Speed Vac. The enriched
biotinylated peptides were resuspended in 0.2 mL PBS, and the pH was
corrected by adding 20 μL of 1.5 M TrisHCl buffer (pH = 7.4).
A 10 μL aliquot of the elution was taken to measure biotinylated
peptide content.
Analysis of Biotin Content in Peptide Samples
for DiDBiT
The biotin content of biotinylated peptide mixtures
in samples for
MS analysis was determined using Fluorescent Biotin Quantitation kit
(Thermo Scientific Pierce) with a Synergy Mx Microplate Reader (Biotek)
measuring fluorescent excitation/emission at 495/520, according to
the manufacturer’s instructions. Fluorescent reads from biocytin
solutions in PBS with concentrations between 0.5 and 10 pmol/μL
were used as a standard curve. Samples processed following our protocol
for DiDBiT that have signals greater than 1.5–4 pmol biotin/μL
were shown to be highly suitable for MS analysis. In samples with
concentrations below 1 pmol biotin/μL, few if any biotin labeled
peptides could be detected.
On-Bead Digestion
Protein enrichment before on-bead
digestion was done according to previously published protocols[13,28] with minor modifications. NHS-biotin labeled proteins from HEK cell
lysates were incubated with 250 μL NeutrAvidin beads in RIPA
buffer for 1 h at room temperature and loaded into an empty gravity-flow
column (Pierce). The sample was washed with 100 bed volumes of RIPA
buffer, 10 bed volumes of PBS, and 10 bed volumes of 50 mM NH4HCO3 in water. In the case of pelleted proteins
containing biotin-AHA labeled proteins (see above), a resolubilization
step was required before NeutrAvidin bead incubation. Following a
previously reported protocol for purification of biotinylated proteins
from pelleted lysate,[9] we resolubilized
the pellet in 6 M urea and 1% SDS and, after diluting the sample 1:1
in PBS, the solubilized proteins were incubated in 250 μL of
a slurry of NeutrAvidin beads for 2 h at room temperature. Beads were
then precipitated by centrifugation at 1000g for
5 min at room temperature then transferred to a gravity-flow column
and washed with 50 bed volumes of 1% SDS in PBS, 100 bed volumes of
PBS, and 10 bed volumes of 50 mM NH4HCO3. After
the protein enrichment and wash steps, NHS-biotin or biotin-AHA labeled
proteins bound to beads were trypsinized following previously published
protocols[5,16] with the following minor modifications:
Beads were resuspended in 3 M urea and 50 mM NH4HCO3 in water. Proteins bound to beads were reduced by adding
TCEP to 5 mM final concentration and incubated with vigorous orbital
shaking for 30 min at 55 °C. Protein alkylation was done by adding
iodoacetamide to 11 mM final concentration and incubating with vigorous
shaking in the dark for 30 min. We then added 5 μg of trypsin,
which corresponds approximately to a ratio of 1/100 trypsin/bound-protein
(calculated from the maximum binding capacity of the beads: 2 mg/mL,
biotinylated albumin according to the manufacturer). We added trypsin
enhancer surfactant ProteaseMax to 0.03% final concentration to the
digestion reaction and incubated for 3 h at 37 °C with vigorous
vortexing. Digested bead suspensions were loaded onto spin columns
and centrifuged at 2000g for 5 min to separate the
released peptides from the NeutrAvidin beads. The sample was analyzed
by MS as “on-bead digestion of bound proteins” (see
Figures 3a,c and 4d). Peptides that
remained bound to the beads after digestion due to the strong biotin
binding to NeutrAvidin were released by eluting with a solution containing
0.2% TFA, 0.1% formic acid, 80% acetonitrile, and 20% water as described
above for DiDBiT. This sample was analyzed by MS as “on-bead
digestion release 2” (see Figures 3a,d
and 4d).
Figure 4
Application of DiDBiT to identify newly synthesized proteins in
HEK cells. (a) Schematic of the biotin-AHA modification with mass
gain of 523.2749 on methionine sites in peptides. (b) HEK cells were
exposed to AHA for 1 h. Starting from 10 mg of protein lysate and
using MudPIT analysis, we identified 4210 modified peptides corresponding
to 1817 newly synthesized proteins by a mass gain of 523.2749. We
identified and filtered out 711 unmodified peptides corresponding
to 345 proteins. As expected, only unmodified peptides were detected
in the analyses from NeutrAvidin beads flow-through after peptide
enrichment, no modified peptides were detected. (c) Analysis of the
cellular compartments from which newly synthesized proteins were identified
(d) Comparison of DiDBiT and on-bead digestion to detect AHA-biotin
labeled newly synthesized proteins from HEK cells. Starting from 6
mg of protein lysate and using reverse-phase separation coupled to
MS analysis, DiDBiT increased detection of modified proteins 23-fold.
(e) Venn diagram showing the selective identification of biotinylated
proteins using DiDBiT compared to the detection of unmodified peptides
from on-bead digestion. More than half of the biotinylated proteins
identified by DiDBiT were not detected in samples from on-bead digestion.
The majority of unmodified proteins (86%) detected by on-bead digestion
were not detected by with DiDBiT, and are likely contaminants from
incomplete purification of biotinylated proteins. (g) Plots of the
number of peptides per protein for DiDBiT and on-bead digestion. AHA-labeling
results in relatively sparse coverage.
Application of DiDBiT to identify labeled
peptides from HEK cells
labeled with NHS-biotin. (a) Schematic of the modification on lysines
adding a mass of 226.0776 given by NHS-biotin. (b) HEK cells were
exposed to NHS-biotin for 1 h at 4 °C. Starting from 10 mg of
cell lysate, we identified 10 715 biotin-modified peptides
corresponding to 2185 proteins using MudPIT. Unmodified peptides were
negligible, indicative of the efficient enrichment DiDBiT provides.
(c) Measurements of biotin content in aliquots from peptide NeutrAvidin
bead elutions (E1–E5) serve as quality control for MS sample
preparation. The biotin content in E1–E5 correlates with the
number of biotin-modified peptides detected by MudPIT for each elution.
Biotin measurements and MS were done in five sequential 300 μL
elution fractions (E1–E5) collected from NeutrAvidin beads.
Biotin was assayed in a 1/100 aliquot of each elution. We were able
to detect a considerable number of modified peptides in samples with
a concentration of biotin above 10–15 pmol/10 μL of sample.Comparison of DiDBiT with conventional methods
to identify biotin-labeled
peptides from HEK cells labeled with NHS-biotin. (a) Starting with
equal amounts of material (6 mg of protein lysate) and using reverse-phase
separation coupled to MS analysis, we compared DiDBiT and 2 protein
enrichment methods (outputs of the fractions in 3A, 3Ai, 3Aii, and
3B described in Figure 1). (b–d) Venn
diagrams showing the overlap of modified proteins detected with the
DiDBiT strategy and unmodified proteins detected with protein elution
(b) on-bead digestion (c) and elution of bound peptides in the “on-bead
digestion release 2” fraction (d). The modified peptides detected
using DiDBiT are highly overlapping (88.2%) with the modified peptides
detected in the on-bead digestion release 2 fraction, however DiDBiT
detected 10× more biotin modified proteins (d). (e) Plot of the
number of peptides identified per protein for the three methods. Similar
coverage per protein was obtained with DiDBiT, on-bead digestion,
and protein elution.Application of DiDBiT to identify newly synthesized proteins in
HEK cells. (a) Schematic of the biotin-AHA modification with mass
gain of 523.2749 on methionine sites in peptides. (b) HEK cells were
exposed to AHA for 1 h. Starting from 10 mg of protein lysate and
using MudPIT analysis, we identified 4210 modified peptides corresponding
to 1817 newly synthesized proteins by a mass gain of 523.2749. We
identified and filtered out 711 unmodified peptides corresponding
to 345 proteins. As expected, only unmodified peptides were detected
in the analyses from NeutrAvidin beads flow-through after peptide
enrichment, no modified peptides were detected. (c) Analysis of the
cellular compartments from which newly synthesized proteins were identified
(d) Comparison of DiDBiT and on-bead digestion to detect AHA-biotin
labeled newly synthesized proteins from HEK cells. Starting from 6
mg of protein lysate and using reverse-phase separation coupled to
MS analysis, DiDBiT increased detection of modified proteins 23-fold.
(e) Venn diagram showing the selective identification of biotinylated
proteins using DiDBiT compared to the detection of unmodified peptides
from on-bead digestion. More than half of the biotinylated proteins
identified by DiDBiT were not detected in samples from on-bead digestion.
The majority of unmodified proteins (86%) detected by on-bead digestion
were not detected by with DiDBiT, and are likely contaminants from
incomplete purification of biotinylated proteins. (g) Plots of the
number of peptides per protein for DiDBiT and on-bead digestion. AHA-labeling
results in relatively sparse coverage.
Protein Elution and Digestion
Protein enrichment by
incubation with NeutrAvidin beads and elution with guanidine denaturing
solution was done according to previously published reports[29−31] with minor modifications. NHS-biotin labeled proteins from HEK cell
lysates were incubated with 250 μL of NeutrAvidin beads in RIPA
buffer for 1 h at room temperature. Beads were precipitated by centrifugation
at 1000g for 5 min at room temperature, loaded into
an empty gravity flow column, washed with 1000 bed volumes of RIPA
buffer and 100 bed volumes of PBS, and eluted with 8 M guanidine·HCl,
(pH 1.5) buffer, collecting 0.2 mL fractions. All the fractions were
precipitated with methanol/chloroform, as described above. Protein
pellet containing biotinylated proteins was resuspended and digested
as described above in the “Protein Digestion
for DiDBiT” subsection. The sample was analyzed by MS
as “Protein enrichment and elution” (see Figure 3a and b).
Western Blots
The efficiency of protein biotinylation
after the click reactions of AHA labeled proteins with biotin-alkyne
was evaluated using Western blots. Ten microliter aliquots of the
completed click reactions were mixed with 10 μL of 2× sample
buffer, boiled for 5 min, and loaded onto 4 to 20% precast gradient
gels SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) (Bio-Rad). The
separated proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose membranes, and
blots were incubated in blocking solution containing 5% nonfat milk
and 0.05% Tween 20 (Sigma) in Tris-saline buffer, pH = 7.6 (TBST).
Membranes were incubated with primary antibodies overnight at 4 °C
in 10 mL of blocking solution. The following primary antibodies were
used in this study: (1:1000) goat polyclonal anti-biotin antibody
(Thermo Scientific) or (1:1000) streptavidin-HRP (Cell signaling Technology).
Blots were washed three times in TBST for 10 min and incubated with
1:2000 HRP-linked rabbit anti-goat IgG (Biorad) in blocking solution
for 1 h at room temperature. Blots incubated with streptavidin-HRP
do not require a secondary antibody. Bands were visualized on autoradiography
film (HyBlot CL from Denville Scientific Inc.) using an ECL chemiluminescence
kit (Pierce). Following our protocol, biotin labeled proteins should
be detected with 1–2 s film exposure to membranes. Weaker Western
blot signals (greater than 1 min exposure) indicate that biotin labeling
is low in the samples and few biotin labeled proteins would be detected
by MS analysis.
Peptide Chromatography and MS Collection
For analysis
by Multidimensional Protein Identification Technology (MudPIT), the
peptides were pressure-loaded onto a 250 μm i.d. capillary with
a kasil frit containing 2 cm of 10 μm Jupiter C18-A material
(Phenomenex, Ventura, CA) followed by 2 cm 5 μm Partisphere
strong cation exchanger (Whatman, Clifton, NJ). This loading column
was washed with buffer containing 95% water, 5% acetonitrile, and
0.1% formic acid. After washing, a 100 μm i.d. capillary with
a 5 μm pulled tip packed with 15 cm 4 μm Jupiter C18 material
(Phenomenex, Ventura, CA) was attached to the loading column with
a union and the entire split-column (loading column–union–analytical
column) was placed inline with an Agilent 1100 quaternary HPLC instrument
(Palo Alto, CA). The sample was analyzed using a modified 12-step
separation described previously.[32] The
buffer solutions used were 5% acetonitrile/0.1% formic acid (buffer
A), 80% acetonitrile/0.1% formic acid (buffer B), and 500 mM ammonium
acetate/5% acetonitrile/0.1% formic acid (buffer C). Step 1 consisted
of a 60 min gradient from 0 to 100% buffer B. Steps 2–11 had
the following profile: 3 min of 100% buffer A, 5 min of X% buffer C, a 10 min gradient from 0 to 10% buffer B, and a 105 min
gradient from 15 to 100% buffer B. The buffer C percentages (X) were 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, and 60% respectively
for the 12-step. In the final two steps, the gradient contained 5
min of 100% buffer A, 5 min of 100% buffer C, a 10 min gradient from
0 to 15% buffer B, and a 105 min gradient from 15 to 100% buffer B.
As peptides eluted from the microcapillary column, they were electrosprayed
directly into an LTQ-OrbitrapXL mass spectrometer (ThermoFinnigan,
Palo Alto, CA) with the application of a distal 2.4 kV spray voltage.
A cycle of one full-scan FT mass spectrum (300–1600 m/z) at 60,000 resolution followed by 10
data-dependent IT MS/MS spectra at a 35% normalized collision energy
was repeated continuously throughout each step of the multidimensional
separation. Application of mass spectrometer scan functions and HPLC
solvent gradients were controlled by the Xcaliber data system.Peptides for single reverse-phase separation were handled similar
to MudPIT except the frit did not contain SCX. The column was placed
inline with an Agilent 1100 quaternary HPLC instrument (Palo Alto,
CA) and analyzed using 5 h gradient of buffer B 0–100%. The
peptides were electrosprayed directly in a Velos mass spectrometer
(ThermoFinnigan, Palo Alto, CA). The data collection parameters were
identical to the MudPIT analysis except 20 data-dependent IT MS/MS
spectra were employed.
Analysis of Tandem Mass Spectra
MS/MS spectra were
analyzed using the following software analysis protocol. MS/MS spectra
remaining after filtering were searched with the Prolucid Sotware[33] against the UniProt_Human_02_09_2013 or UniProt_Rat_07_21_2011
(for the HEK cells and retina samples, respectively) concatenated
to a decoy database in which the sequence for each entry in the original
database was reversed.[34] All searches were
parallelized and performed on a Beowulf computer cluster consisting
of 100 1.2 GHz Athlon CPUs.[35] No enzyme
specificity was considered for any search. The following modifications
were searched for a static modification of 57.02146 on cysteine for
all analyses, a differential modification of 523.2749 on methionine
for AHA, and 226.0776 on lysine for NHS-biotin. Prolucid results were
assembled and filtered using the DTASelect (version 2.0) program.[36,37] DTASelect 2.0 uses a linear discriminant analysis to dynamically
set XCorr and DeltaCN thresholds for the entire data set to achieve
a user-specified false discovery rate (FDR). In addition, the modified
peptides were required to be fully tryptic (except for the proteinase
K digest), less than 5 ppm deviation from peptide match, and a FDR
at the spectra level of 0.01. The FDRs are estimated by the program
from the number and quality of spectral matches to the decoy database.
For all data sets, the protein FDR was <1% and the peptide FDR
was <0.5%. Cellular localization as annotated by Gene Ontology
was determined by STRAP (Software Tool for Researching Annotations
of Proteins).[38] We predict any mass spectrometer
will be capable of analyzing a DiDBiT sample. The mass spectrometers
used in this study were ion traps, that are capable of high resolution
and high mass accuracy, which increase the confidence in modified
peptide identifications compared to low resolution mass spectrometers.
Results and Discussion
Our goal was to establish a method
to allow direct detection of
biotin-modified peptides by MS/MS so that biotinylated proteins in
a complex protein mixture could be directly identified, thereby minimizing
the requirement for time-consuming validation of labeling in candidates.
Conventionally, cell lysates containing biotinylated proteins are
incubated with NeutrAvidin beads, which are subsequently washed to
remove unbound proteins (Figure 1, left, steps
A, 1–3). The proteins that remain bound to the beads are either
digested directly on the beads (“on-bead digestion method”,
Figure 1, step 3Ai)[5,9,16,39] or eluted
from the beads and then digested (“protein elution method”,
Figure 1, step 3A).[1,5,10,13,14,19] The major problem with
these methods is that the low abundance of the biotinylated peptides
in the complex peptide mixture decreases the chances of identifying
them by MS analysis. This in turn makes it difficult to distinguish
biotinylated proteins from unlabeled proteins. In DiDBiT, cell lysates
are first digested and the resulting peptides are incubated with NeutrAvidin
beads to enrich for the biotin-tagged peptides. The highly enriched
biotin-tagged peptides are then eluted for MS analysis (Figure 1, right panel, steps 1–3B).
Application of DiDBiT to
Identify NHS-Biotin-Labeled Proteins
in HEK Cells
We initially tested our strategy by incubating
HEK 293T cells with NHS-biotin, which labels proteins with exposed
lysines and N-terminal amino acids, adding a mass of 226.0776 (Figure 2a). Cells were lysed, proteins were precipitated
and digested. Resulting peptides were incubated with NeutrAvidin beads
and the bound peptides were eluted with a stringent denaturing buffer
(80% acetonitrile, 0.1% TFA, 0.1% formic acid). We collected 5 elutions
and the presence of biotin-tagged peptides in each elution was assessed
before MS analysis by biotin detection in solution using a sensitive
quantitation kit (Pierce). This analysis demonstrated a correlation
between biotin content in the peptide samples and subsequent detection
of biotin-modified peptides by MudPIT (Figure 2b). We required peptides to have less than a 5 ppm deviation from
the peptide match, resulting in a peptide false discovery rate <
0.5%. We detected 10 715 biotin-modified peptides corresponding
to 2185 proteins using MudPIT analysis and only 4 unmodified peptides
corresponding to 4 proteins (Figure 2b). The
large enrichment of biotinylated peptides and thus the high confidence
in the biotinylated protein identifications with DiDBiT is analogous
to use of phosphopeptide enrichment strategies to identify phosphoproteins.
Figure 2
Application of DiDBiT to identify labeled
peptides from HEK cells
labeled with NHS-biotin. (a) Schematic of the modification on lysines
adding a mass of 226.0776 given by NHS-biotin. (b) HEK cells were
exposed to NHS-biotin for 1 h at 4 °C. Starting from 10 mg of
cell lysate, we identified 10 715 biotin-modified peptides
corresponding to 2185 proteins using MudPIT. Unmodified peptides were
negligible, indicative of the efficient enrichment DiDBiT provides.
(c) Measurements of biotin content in aliquots from peptide NeutrAvidin
bead elutions (E1–E5) serve as quality control for MS sample
preparation. The biotin content in E1–E5 correlates with the
number of biotin-modified peptides detected by MudPIT for each elution.
Biotin measurements and MS were done in five sequential 300 μL
elution fractions (E1–E5) collected from NeutrAvidin beads.
Biotin was assayed in a 1/100 aliquot of each elution. We were able
to detect a considerable number of modified peptides in samples with
a concentration of biotin above 10–15 pmol/10 μL of sample.
Comparison of DiDBiT with Conventional Methods to Identify NHS-Biotin-Labeled
Proteins
We compared DiDBiT to conventional methods by performing
a series of single reverse-phase analyses using HEK 293T cells labeled
for 1 h with membrane permeable NHS-biotin. The starting material
for each method was 6 mg of protein cell lysate. The DiDBiT strategy
identified 3777 biotinylated peptides, while the protein elution (output
3A, Figures 1 and 3a)
and on-bead digestion (output 3Ai in Figures 1 and 3a) methods identified 20 and 6 biotinylated
peptides, respectively (Figure 3a). More than
95% of the peptides identified with the conventional methods were
unmodified, whereas less than 15% of peptides identified by DiDBiT
were unmodified. DiDBiT resulted in the identification of a total
of 1536 proteins, of which 78% were biotinylated and therefore true
hits. By contrast, protein enrichment followed by elution and digestion
resulted in identification of 454 proteins, of which 16 (less than
4%) were biotinylated, and the on-bead digestion method resulted in
identification of 198 proteins of which 4 (2%) were biotinylated.
These data suggest that DiDBiT dramatically increases the identification
of true hits based on direct detection of biotin-tagged peptides,
and also increases identification of total proteins in the sample
compared to conventional methods (see also Figure 3b and c). In the on-bead digestion method, one would expect
that the biotin-modified fragments of the proteins remain attached
to NeutrAvidin beads after trypsinization. We tested whether the stringent
elution buffer used in the DiDBiT protocol would release bound biotinylated
peptides from the beads after the digestion (Figure 1, output 3Aii; Figure 3a, “on-bead
digestion release 2”). Interestingly, this approach has not
been reported in previous studies for MS analysis of biotinylated
protein enrichment. Elution of bound peptides after the on-bead digestion
resulted in identification of 293 modified peptides, corresponding
to 144 modified proteins, significantly more than the modified peptides
recovered from the traditional on-bead digestion method. Despite this
improved identification of direct biotin-modified proteins, only ∼40%
of the peptides identified in the elution were biotin-labeled, compared
with greater than 85% using DiDBiT.A potential advantage of
direct detection of biotin-labeled peptides with DiDBiT is the greater
confidence of identifying biotinylated proteins in a complex sample,
since proteins identified by conventional methods could include contaminants.
One way to address this is to determine the overlap between the proteins
identified by conventional methods and those identified by DiDBiT.
We compared the biotin-labeled proteins identified directly by DiDBiT
with the unmodified proteins identified by the conventional methods.
For both the protein enrichment and elution method and the on-bead
digestion method, more than 60% of the proteins identified by unmodified
peptides were also identified by biotinylated peptides in the DiDBiT
analysis, and are therefore validated as true hits (Figure 3b–d). The Venn diagrams demonstrate that
these traditional methods do indeed identify bona fide biotinylated
proteins from unmodified peptides but it is impossible to distinguish
them from contaminant proteins without further experimentation. The
more striking observation is that only ∼30% of the biotin-labeled
proteins identified by DiDBiT were identified by the conventional
methods. Finally, the number of peptides identified per protein was
similar between all three methods, which suggests that similar coverage
per protein was obtained using DiDBiT and the other two methods (Figure 3e). These data suggest that conventional methods
generate samples that are predominantly unmodified peptides, which,
due to the limited dynamic range of the mass spectrometers, prevent
the identification of the modified peptides.The results presented
above suggest that DiDBiT has increased sensitivity
in identifying proteins compared to conventional methods (Figures 2 and 3). To address this
more directly, we tested if DiDBiT could identify an adequate number
of biotinylated peptides for protein identification in samples with
1, 3, and 6 mg of protein lysate starting material. Comparable numbers
of biotin-modified peptides were identified with 3 and 6 mg of starting
material (3566 and 3777 peptides, respectively), resulting in identification
of comparable numbers of biotin-modified proteins (1077 and 1210 proteins,
respectively; Table 1). By contrast, starting
with 1 mg of protein lysate resulted in a large decrease in identification
of modified peptides, but still more biotinylated peptides (378) and
proteins (184) were identified with 1 mg starting material using DiDBiT
than with 6 mg of starting material using other methods (Figure 3a). Use of more sensitive peptide separation techniques,
such as MudPIT analysis instead of single reverse-phase separation,
would further improve the identification of biotin-labeled peptides
in samples with limited starting material. To demonstrate this, the
comparison between DiDBiT and on-bead digestion was repeated using
MudPIT analysis. DiDBiT identified 16 367 modified peptides
(3422 proteins) and 216 unmodified peptides (216 proteins) while on-bead
digestion identified 161 modified peptides (103 proteins) and 5030
unmodified peptides (1974 proteins) (see Supporting
Information tables for peptide lists). Although MudPIT increased
the number of modified peptides detected in both strategies compared
to single reverse-phase analysis, DiDBIT still identified 100×
more modified peptides and 10× more proteins (see comparison
in Supporting Information Table 2). It
is interesting that DiDBiT increased the total number of peptides
recovered and the number of protein identifications compared to the
other methods. One possibility for this increase is that in the traditional
methods the unmodified peptides from abundant proteins are preventing
the identification of peptides from lower abundant proteins due to
the limited dynamic range of the mass spectrometer. It is also possible
that in the traditional methods the large proteins block other proteins
from binding to the neutravidin beads, while the much smaller modified
peptides do not interfere with other peptides binding to the beads.
It seems likely that the stringent peptide elution buffer may account
for the greater number of peptides and proteins identified by DiDBIT.
The peptide elution buffer contains 80% acetonitrile, which is not
applicable for protein elution because it would precipitate the proteins.
Overall, these results demonstrate that DiDBiT allows efficient identification
of biotin-labeled proteins based on optimized enrichment of biotin-tagged
peptides and their direct detection by MS.
Table 1
Yield of
DiDBiT Protocol for Different
Amounts of Starting Materiala
input protein
lysate from NHS-biotin labeled cells
modified
peptides
modified
proteins
6 mg
3777
1210
3 mg
3566
1077
1 mg
378
184
HEK cells were
labeled with NHS-biotin
for 1 h at 4 °C.
HEK cells were
labeled with NHS-biotin
for 1 h at 4 °C.
Application
of DiDBiT to Identify Newly Synthesized Proteins
in HEK Cells
We investigated the flexibility and sensitivity
of DiDBiT to detect other biotin tags of lower abundance within a
complex mixture of proteins by identifying newly synthesized proteins
using the noncanonical amino acid, l-homoazidoalanine (AHA).
AHA is incorporated into proteins in place of methionine during protein
synthesis, and biotin alkyne is covalently bound to the azide group
in AHA by an in vitro click reaction. Since methionine occurs with
much lower frequency than lysine, this assay further tested the sensitivity
of DiDBiT compared to analysis of the NHS-biotin labeled samples,
above. HEK cell cultures were briefly incubated in methionine-free
media to deplete cells of endogenous methionine (Supporting Information Figure 1b) and then incubated with
4 mM AHA for 1 h. Starting from 10 mg of protein lysate, we tagged
the AHA labeled proteins with biotin-alkyne using click chemistry
as described in the Experimental Procedures section. Using Cu2+/TCEP and TBTA in tert-butanol/DMSO[9,17] maximized efficiency of the cycloaddition
reaction that incorporates the biotin tag into AHA-labeled proteins
and resulted in a greater degree of labeling than with the previously
published CuBr-based method[16] (Supporting Information Figure 1a). After biotinylation,
precipitated proteins were trypsinized and the resulting peptides
were incubated with NeutrAvidin beads. Peptides were eluted from the
NeutrAvidin beads and evaluated for biotin label before MS analysis
using the biotin quantitation kit, mentioned above. Peptides were
detected by searching for a mass addition of 523.2749 on methionine
corresponding to the AHA-biotin modification (Figure 4a). Using MudPIT analysis, we detected 4217 biotin-AHA-modified
peptides corresponding to 1817 newly synthesized proteins in the elutions.
We detected ∼700 unmodified peptides, corresponding to 345
proteins. We also analyzed the peptides that were not bound to the
NeutrAvidin beads (i.e the flow-through). None of the peptides in
the flow through were biotin-modified. By contrast, MudPIT detected
11306 unmodified peptides corresponding to 3184 proteins in the flow
through.To our knowledge, this analysis reveals the largest
reported number of newly synthesized proteins identified based on
detection of AHA-modified peptides.[19,21,22,40] To evaluate the proteins
in human cells that are newly synthesized within 1 h, we determined
their cellular distribution (Figure 4c). AHA-labeled
proteins are distributed throughout the cell in all major organelles.
These results demonstrate the efficient enrichment of biotin-modified
peptides and the resultant capacity of MudPIT to identify modified
peptides under conditions in which the population of biotin-labeled
proteins is relatively less abundant.
Comparison of DiDBiT with
Conventional Methods to Identify Newly
Synthesized Proteins
We compared DiDBiT with the on-bead
digestion method for the detection of AHA-labeled proteins (Figure 4d). Twelve milligrams of AHA-labeled HEK cell proteins
were biotinylated by click chemistry and then split into two 6 mg
samples for analysis using DidBiT or on-bead digestion. The resulting
peptides were analyzed by single reverse-phase analysis. With DiDBiT
we identified 628 modified peptides corresponding to 345 modified
proteins. No biotin-modified peptides were detected in the sample
prepared with the conventional on-bead digestion method. When we eluted
the peptides from the NeutrAvidin beads after the on-bead digestion
with the stringent buffer used in the DiDBiT protocol, we detected
27 biotin-modified peptides corresponding to 17 biotin-labeled proteins.
Although this extra elution step did identify true hits as AHA-biotin
modified proteins, as seen above, they were less than 5% of the AHAbiotin-labeled proteins identified with DiDBiT, consistent with the
increased sensitivity of DiDBiT shown above.Both DiDBiT and
the on-bead digestion methods identified proportionately more unmodified
peptides from the AHA-labeled samples compared to the NHS-biotin labeled
samples (Figures 3a and 4d). We speculate that this is because the AHA-biotin labeled proteins
are much less abundant in the sample, resulting in more contaminating
proteins. AHA-labeled proteins also have lower protein sequence coverage
than NHS-biotin labeled proteins because AHA, which is incorporated
in place of methionine, is much less common in tryptic peptides and
in the vertebrate proteome than lysines which are tagged with NHS-biotin.
Of the 345 AHA-biotin labeled proteins identified with DiDBiT (Figure 4d), 163 (less than 50%) were also detected in the
sample prepared with the traditional on-bead digestion method (Figure 4e). Although one cannot conclude that the proteins
identified by on-bead digestion are AHA labeled newly synthesized
proteins without direct detection of the biotin tag, we were able
to use this set of proteins to compare the coverage of proteins identified
from DiDBiT and on-bead digestion. DiDBiT identified 379 AHA-biotin
labeled peptides from these 163 overlapping proteins, while the on-bead
digestion identified 826 unmodified peptides. Plotting the peptides
per protein identification for DiDBiT and on bead digestion shows
that requiring the identification of the modified methionine in DiDBiT
reduces protein sequence coverage (Figure 4g) but increases the sensitivity of AHA-biotin labeled peptide detection.
It is possible that combining DiDBiT detection of modified peptides
with analysis of flow-through could increase the confidence of identifying
biotinylated proteins by increasing the sequence coverage. Overall,
these data suggest that when the subpopulation of targeted candidates
is of low abundance, contamination by unlabeled peptides increases.
With the on-bead digestion method, this results in an increase in
the false positive rate of protein identification, demonstrating the
greater importance of direct identification of the biotin modification
on the peptides with DiDBiT.
DiDBiT Detection of Newly Synthesized Proteins
in Adult Rat
Retina in Vivo
We next tested whether the DiDBiT strategy
allows efficient and reliable detection of newly synthesized proteins
in vivo. Our goal was to establish a system that allows high temporal
resolution to obtain meaningful information about protein populations
that incorporate AHA during in vivo protein translation over short
time periods. We chose to study newly synthesized proteins in neuronal
tissue in vivo using intraocular administration of AHA to label newly
synthesized proteins in the eye and in particular the retina. In vivo
AHA labeling is very challenging due to competition between AHA and
endogenous methionine (Supporting Information Figure 1b). In preliminary experiments, we tested several concentrations
of AHA injected into the eye and several labeling protocols. The retinal
tissue was harvested and processed to tag the AHA labeled proteins
with biotin-alkyne using click chemistry. We used Western blots to
evaluate biotin-AHA incorporation into newly synthesized proteins.
Intraocular administration of low doses of AHA (14 μg/kg in
each eye) once a day for 3 days was not sufficient to obtain detectable
incorporation of AHA to proteins (Figure 5a,b).
Increasing AHA doses to 1.4 mg/kg per eye per day over 3 days overcame
the competition with endogenous methionine and resulted in detectable
protein labeling (Figure 5a). In further experiments
to test more acute AHA exposure periods, we observed that AHA incorporation
into proteins could be achieved over shorter times after administration
of 1.4 mg/kg AHA (Figure 6a).
Figure 5
Optimizing incorporation
of AHA into proteins in vitro and in vivo.
Detection of AHA-biotin labeled proteins was done by Western blots
with antibiotin antibody. Rats were injected intraocularly (i.o.)
with 5 μL of 4 mM AHA and 400 mM AHA (doses of 1.4 μg/kg
and 1.4 mg/kg, respectively) or saline. Administration was done once
a day over 3 days, and rats were sacrificed 24 h after the last injection.
Both eyes were dissected and processed for click chemistry to tag
AHA-labeled proteins with biotin. Western blots to detect AHA-biotin-labeled
retinal proteins show that a dose of 1.4 mg/kg AHA into the eye results
in extensive incorporation of AHA into retinal proteins, whereas injections
of 1.4 μg/kg AHA do not label retinal proteins. As a positive
control, we included a protein lysate from HEK cell labeled with 4
mM AHA for 1 h to make sure that the click reaction and reagents were
working, and lack of labeling of retinal samples from animals injected
1.4 μg/kg was due to lack of AHA biotinylation. (c) AHA-biotin
labeled proteins were detected in an extract of the optic nerve after
intravitreal injection of 1.4 mg/kg AHA but not saline. These data
indicate that retina ganglion cells (RGCs) incorporate AHA and labeled
proteins are transported down their axons in the optic nerve.
Figure 6
DiDBiT detection of newly synthesized proteins
in adult rat retina
in vivo. (a) Upper panel: Protocols for intraocular AHA injections
to evaluate the temporal resolution of in vivo AHA labeling to detect
de novo protein synthesis in the retina. Adult rats received intravitreal
AHA injections and retinas were collected after 3 h (labeled “AHA
3 h sample”). Another group of animals received two intravitreal
AHA injections 21 h apart and were sacrificed 3 h after the second
injection (labeled “AHA 24 h sample”). AHA-labeled proteins
were biotinylated by click chemistry and analyzed using DiDBiT. (a)
Center and lower panels: Western blots and quantification of AHA-biotin
labeled retinal proteins after click reaction with biotin-alkyne.
More AHA-biotin labeled proteins are detected after 24 h of AHA labeling
compared to 3 h. No biotin label is detected in samples from control
animals after intravitreal injection of saline. (b) Biotin measurements
(left panels) and MS detection of biotin-modified peptides (right
panels) from sequential NeurAvidin elutions (E1–E3) of peptides
from in vivo AHA labeling of newly synthesized proteins in the retina,
analyzed by MudPIT. In the AHA 3 h sample, only E1 had sufficient
biotin content to warrant MS analyses, whereas the two first elutions
(E1 and E2) from the AHA 24 h sample group had sufficient biotin for
MS analysis. (c) Numbers of modified and unmodified peptides and proteins
from the 3 and 24 h retinal AHA samples. More unmodified proteins
were detected in the 24 h AHA retina sample than the 3 h AHA retina
sample because the sample was the combination of E1 and E2, both of
which include unmodified and modified proteins. (d) Venn diagram showing
numbers and overlap of newly synthesized proteins based on direct
detection of AHA-biotin modified peptides after 3 and 24 h of AHA
labeling. The majority (78%) of newly synthesized retinal proteins
detected after the 3 h AHA labeling period were also detected after
24 h of AHA labeling. (e) Distribution of AHA-biotin labeled peptides
and corresponding proteins in cellular compartments from the AHA 3
h sample. The 24 h labeling group resulted in the same cellular distribution
of newly synthesized proteins (see Supporting
Information Table 1).
Optimizing incorporation
of AHA into proteins in vitro and in vivo.
Detection of AHA-biotin labeled proteins was done by Western blots
with antibiotin antibody. Rats were injected intraocularly (i.o.)
with 5 μL of 4 mM AHA and 400 mM AHA (doses of 1.4 μg/kg
and 1.4 mg/kg, respectively) or saline. Administration was done once
a day over 3 days, and rats were sacrificed 24 h after the last injection.
Both eyes were dissected and processed for click chemistry to tag
AHA-labeled proteins with biotin. Western blots to detect AHA-biotin-labeled
retinal proteins show that a dose of 1.4 mg/kg AHA into the eye results
in extensive incorporation of AHA into retinal proteins, whereas injections
of 1.4 μg/kg AHA do not label retinal proteins. As a positive
control, we included a protein lysate from HEK cell labeled with 4
mM AHA for 1 h to make sure that the click reaction and reagents were
working, and lack of labeling of retinal samples from animals injected
1.4 μg/kg was due to lack of AHA biotinylation. (c) AHA-biotin
labeled proteins were detected in an extract of the optic nerve after
intravitreal injection of 1.4 mg/kg AHA but not saline. These data
indicate that retina ganglion cells (RGCs) incorporate AHA and labeled
proteins are transported down their axons in the optic nerve.DiDBiT detection of newly synthesized proteins
in adult rat retina
in vivo. (a) Upper panel: Protocols for intraocular AHA injections
to evaluate the temporal resolution of in vivo AHA labeling to detect
de novo protein synthesis in the retina. Adult rats received intravitreal
AHA injections and retinas were collected after 3 h (labeled “AHA
3 h sample”). Another group of animals received two intravitreal
AHA injections 21 h apart and were sacrificed 3 h after the second
injection (labeled “AHA 24 h sample”). AHA-labeled proteins
were biotinylated by click chemistry and analyzed using DiDBiT. (a)
Center and lower panels: Western blots and quantification of AHA-biotin
labeled retinal proteins after click reaction with biotin-alkyne.
More AHA-biotin labeled proteins are detected after 24 h of AHA labeling
compared to 3 h. No biotin label is detected in samples from control
animals after intravitreal injection of saline. (b) Biotin measurements
(left panels) and MS detection of biotin-modified peptides (right
panels) from sequential NeurAvidin elutions (E1–E3) of peptides
from in vivo AHA labeling of newly synthesized proteins in the retina,
analyzed by MudPIT. In the AHA 3 h sample, only E1 had sufficient
biotin content to warrant MS analyses, whereas the two first elutions
(E1 and E2) from the AHA 24 h sample group had sufficient biotin for
MS analysis. (c) Numbers of modified and unmodified peptides and proteins
from the 3 and 24 h retinal AHA samples. More unmodified proteins
were detected in the 24 h AHA retina sample than the 3 h AHA retina
sample because the sample was the combination of E1 and E2, both of
which include unmodified and modified proteins. (d) Venn diagram showing
numbers and overlap of newly synthesized proteins based on direct
detection of AHA-biotin modified peptides after 3 and 24 h of AHA
labeling. The majority (78%) of newly synthesized retinal proteins
detected after the 3 h AHA labeling period were also detected after
24 h of AHA labeling. (e) Distribution of AHA-biotin labeled peptides
and corresponding proteins in cellular compartments from the AHA 3
h sample. The 24 h labeling group resulted in the same cellular distribution
of newly synthesized proteins (see Supporting
Information Table 1).DiDBiT analysis was performed after two different AHA exposure
protocols and the outcomes were compared to determine the sensitivity
of detection of newly synthesized protein in vivo. In one protocol,
eyes of adult rats were injected once with AHA and the retinas were
harvested after 3 h. In the second protocol, eyes were injected twice
with AHA, and spaced 20 h apart, and the retinas were harvested 24
h after the first injection (Figure 6a, upper
panel). Control animals received saline injections. The retinal tissue
was processed to tag the AHA labeled proteins with biotin-alkyne using
click chemistry, as described above. Western blots of AHA-biotin labeled
proteins prior to trypsin digestion show detectable AHA-biotin labeling
in retina after 3h and a further increase in AHA-biotin labeling after
24 h, whereas Westerns of saline-injected retinal proteins have no
biotin label (Figure 6a, center and lower panels).
After the proteins were digested and enriched on NeutrAvidin beads,
we used biotin assays of the eluted peptide solution to evaluate the
AHA-biotin labeling in the peptide sample before MudPIT analysis (Figure 6 b). The biotin assays show detectable biotin in
the first elution of the 3 h retina sample and in the first and second
elutions in the 24 h sample, consistent with the increased biotin
labeling seen on the Western blot. Samples with sufficient biotin
content were analyzed on a LTQ-Orbitrap mass spectrometer. These assays
serve as valuable assessments of the AHA-biotin labeling success at
intermediate points in the protocol prior to MS. MudPIT analysis revealed
1042 AHA-biotin modified peptides corresponding to 618 proteins with
the 3 h AHA labeling period demonstrating the capacity for robust
detection of proteins that are translated within a short temporal
window in vivo (Figure 6c). We detected 2452
AHA-biotin modified peptides corresponding to 1149 proteins in retinas
that received two AHA injections over 24 h (Figure 6c). The majority (78%) of proteins detected with the 3 h labeling
interval were also detected with the 24 h AHA-labeling protocol (Figure 6d). On the other hand, 58% of the proteins detected
in the 24 h group were not detected with 3 h labeling protocol. These
proteins might be synthesized at a lower rate and require the longer
AHA exposure period to accumulate detectable amounts of labeled protein.
Alternatively, these proteins may be translated from less abundant
mRNAs and the longer window is required to reach the threshold of
detection of the mass spectrometer. Eighty percent of the proteins
identified only in the 3 h AHA labeling sample were identified by
1 spectral count, suggesting these are very low abundance proteins
which have a low probability of being identified by the mass spectrometer[41] (Table 2). We observed
an increase in abundance of modified proteins in the 24 h AHA labeling
sample, which is expected given that longer exposure to AHA allows
accumulation of newly synthesized proteins (Table 2). These results show that MS analysis using DiDBiT allows
the direct detection of newly synthesized biotin-tagged proteins so
that dynamic in vivo changes in the proteome can be investigated.
This level of detection in vivo has not yet been achieved by other
methods, including colabeling strategies with stable isotope-labeled
amino acids (such as SILAC) and AHA, which have recently been reported
to work well in vitro.[18,21,40]
Table 2
AHA-Biotin Modified Proteins Identified
in the 3 h or 24 h AHA Labeling Categorized by Spectra Counta
spectra count
per protein
% distribution
of proteins in sample with the 3 h AHA
labeling treatment
% distribution
of proteins in sample with the 24 h AHA labeling treatment
1
80%
49%
2–5
18%
41%
6–10
1%
6%
11–15
0%
1%
>15
0%
2%
Spectra count
correlates with
protein abundance.
Spectra count
correlates with
protein abundance.
Conclusion
In summary, we describe DiDBiT, a flexible high-resolution strategy
to analyze biotin-labeled proteins, which is applicable to a broad
range of labeling strategies and preparations. Traditional strategies
used for proteomic analysis of biotin-labeled proteins frequently
fail to identify biotin-modified peptides, resulting in ambiguity
between bona fide biotin-labeled proteins and contaminant proteins
present in the sample. DiDBiT improves MS analysis of biotin-labeled
proteins by enriching for the biotin tag on peptides instead of the
protein (Figure 7). In this manner, we were
able increase the detection of biotin-modified peptides up to 200-fold
compared to traditional protein enrichment based methods. This high
level of biotin detection simplifies the discrimination of real candidates
from contaminants. There is a large variety of biotin tags available,
and we demonstrated the flexibility of DiDBiT by examining two biotin
labeling protocols: NHS-biotin and bioorthogonal labeling with AHA.
An immediate application of DiDBiT, which we demonstrated here, is
in the study of newly synthesized proteins in vitro and in vivo. This
enhanced sensitivity provided by DiDBiT enables increased temporal
and spatial resolution in the identification of biotin-labeled proteins,
as well the investigation of synthesis of lower abundance proteins.
Figure 7
Step by
step protocol for DiDBIT. Flow diagram of sample preparation
of biotinylated peptides for mass spectrometry starting from different
labeling strategies that target subpopulations of proteins: NHS-biotin,
which binds exposed lysines on pre-existing proteins, or AHA, which
is incorporated into newly synthesized proteins in place of methionine.
Step by
step protocol for DiDBIT. Flow diagram of sample preparation
of biotinylated peptides for mass spectrometry starting from different
labeling strategies that target subpopulations of proteins: NHS-biotin,
which binds exposed lysines on pre-existing proteins, or AHA, which
is incorporated into newly synthesized proteins in place of methionine.We expect that this methodology
can be extended to enhance the
coverage and confidence in the identification of candidate protein
subpopulations based on other labeling protocols, in particular, to
dissect organelle proteomes or analyze protein–protein interactions
using methods that spatially restrict enzymatic biotinylation tagging,[13,14] to track transport and distribution of proteins in animals under
pathological conditions,[28,39] and to study protein
synthesis and turnover in intact animals. Combining this methodology
with cell type specific protein labeling[20,42] will offer a valuable tool to dissect proteome dynamics in different
cell populations in complex organs such us the nervous system. Finally,
by demonstrating the robustness of our method for in vivo applications,
in this report and a recent study,[43] we
show for the first time the direct detection of biotinylated labeled
in intact animals after a short pulse of AHA labeling. DiDBiT allows
the study of newly synthesized proteins within a time frame as short
as 3 h.
Authors: Cory Pfeiffenberger; Tyler Cutforth; Georgia Woods; Jena Yamada; René C Rentería; David R Copenhagen; John G Flanagan; David A Feldheim Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2005-07-17 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Christoph Roesli; Beatrice Borgia; Christoph Schliemann; Maja Gunthert; Heidi Wunderli-Allenspach; Raffaella Giavazzi; Dario Neri Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jennifer J L Hodas; Anne Nehring; Nicole Höche; Michael J Sweredoski; Rainer Pielot; Sonja Hess; David A Tirrell; Daniela C Dieterich; Erin M Schuman Journal: Proteomics Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Andrew J M Howden; Vincent Geoghegan; Kristin Katsch; Georgios Efstathiou; Bhaskar Bhushan; Omar Boutureira; Benjamin Thomas; David C Trudgian; Benedikt M Kessler; Daniela C Dieterich; Benjamin G Davis; Oreste Acuto Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2013-03-10 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Tina Glisovic-Aplenc; Saar Gill; Lynn A Spruce; Ian R Smith; Hossein Fazelinia; Olga Shestova; Hua Ding; Sarah K Tasian; Richard Aplenc; Steven H Seeholzer Journal: Proteomics Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Song Li; Pamela A Diego-Limpin; Bekim Bajrami; Santosh Keshipeddy; Ying-Wai Lam; Bin Deng; Vahid Farrokhi; Adam J McShane; Reza Nemati; Amy R Howell; Xudong Yao Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: William D Barshop; Hee Jong Kim; Xiaorui Fan; Jihui Sha; Shima Rayatpisheh; James A Wohlschlegel Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Daniel B McClatchy; Yuanhui Ma; David A Liem; Dominic C M Ng; Peipei Ping; John R Yates Journal: J Mol Cell Cardiol Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 5.000
Authors: Dae In Kim; Jevon A Cutler; Chan Hyun Na; Sina Reckel; Santosh Renuse; Anil K Madugundu; Raiha Tahir; Hana L Goldschmidt; Karen L Reddy; Richard L Huganir; Xinyan Wu; Natasha E Zachara; Oliver Hantschel; Akhilesh Pandey Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Miroslava Stastna; Amandine Thomas; Juliana Germano; Somayeh Pourpirali; Jennifer E Van Eyk; Roberta A Gottlieb Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 1.355