| Literature DB >> 25814448 |
Chia-Feng Tsai1,2, Yi-Ting Wang2,3,4, Hsin-Yung Yen4,5, Chih-Chiang Tsou6, Wei-Chi Ku7, Pei-Yi Lin2, Hsuan-Yu Chen8, Alexey I Nesvizhskii6, Yasushi Ishihama9, Yu-Ju Chen1,2,3.
Abstract
Our ability to model the dynamics of signal transduction networks will depend on accurate methods to quantify levels of protein phosphorylation on a global scale. Here we describe a motif-targeting quantitation method for phosphorylation stoichiometry typing. Proteome-wide phosphorylation stoichiometry can be obtained by a simple phosphoproteomic workflow integrating dephosphorylation and isotope tagging with enzymatic kinase reaction. Proof-of-concept experiments using CK2-, MAPK- and EGFR-targeting assays in lung cancer cells demonstrate the advantage of kinase-targeted complexity reduction, resulting in deeper phosphoproteome quantification. We measure the phosphorylation stoichiometry of >1,000 phosphorylation sites including 366 low-abundance tyrosine phosphorylation sites, with high reproducibility and using small sample sizes. Comparing drug-resistant and sensitive lung cancer cells, we reveal that post-translational phosphorylation changes are significantly more dramatic than those at the protein and messenger RNA levels, and suggest potential drug targets within the kinase-substrate network associated with acquired drug resistance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25814448 PMCID: PMC4389224 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7622
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1The basic principle of the motif-targeting quantitative proteomic approach.
(a) Two identical aliquots of tryptic peptides are either mock or phosphatase treated followed by isotopic tagging. Then, the mixing fraction is purified by IMAC. In the flow through of IMAC purification (b), the dephosphorylated peptides from phosphatase-treated aliquot (blue, light isotope labelled) will represent the total peptides, while the unphosphorylated counterparts in the untreated aliquot (red, heavy isotope labelled) will represent the fraction of initial unphosphorylated amount. The mixture of dephosphorylated and unphosphorylated peptides in the flow through is subjected to phosphorylation via a kinase reaction. The motif-targeting phosphopeptides are purified by IMAC. The ratio of heavy/light will represent the fraction of initially unphosphorylated amount and the phosphorylation stoichiometry can be calculated by the formula shown in a. *: In this IMAC step, the phosphopeptides identified from the IMAC eluent can be used to derive the phosphorylation sequence motif and potential kinase for subsequent kinase reaction.
Figure 2The validity of key steps in the workflow was evaluated by model study of Raji B cells.
(a) The efficiency of dephosphorylation step was evaluated by quantitative comparison of sum of the extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) from phosphopeptides before and after phosphatase treatment. (b) The motif of motif-targeting phosphopeptides after kinase reaction by MAPK and CK2. (c) As shown in the scatter plot of the measured stoichiometry between biological duplicate, correlation coefficient between replicate experiments was R2=0.968 (s.d.=6.1%) for CK2 and R2=0.960 (s.d.=6.4%) for MAPK, respectively.
Figure 3Comparison of phosphorylation stoichiometries between drug sensitive and resistant lung cancer cells.
(a) The number and specificity of identified phosphorylation sites after kinase reaction (Class 1). The identified phosphorylation sites were further filtered by matching to known motifs (Class 2) and known phosphorylation sites registered in multiple public databases (Class 3). (b) Analysis of phosphorylation stoichiometry distribution in motifs matched to EGFR, CK2 and MAPK in drug sensitive (PC9) and resistant (PC9/gef.) lung cancer cells.
Selected examples of differential phosphorylation stoichiometry between drug sensitive (PC9) and resistance (PC9/gef.) lung cancer cell.
| HMGA1 | T53 | ND | CK2 | 6% | 42% | 36% | 0.3 |
| AP2A1 | Y418 | ND | EGFR | 11% | 34% | 23% | 1.4 |
| CDK1 | S39 | ND | CK2 | 1% | 33% | 32% | 0.7 |
| DKC1 | S453 | 2.4 | CK2 | 45% | 77% | 32% | 2.4 |
| PTPN3 | S425 | 2.4 | CK2 | 27% | 56% | 29% | 1.4 |
| KPNA3 | S60 | 2.5 | CK2 | 34% | 58% | 24% | 3.4 |
| CEBPB | T235 | 2.3 | MAPK | 41% | 62% | 21% | 1.7 |
| HNRNPK | Y280 | ND | EGFR | 0% | 20% | 20% | 0.9 |
| MET | T977 | ND | MAPK | 0% | 14% | 14% | 1.7 |
| SF3A1 | S359 | 3.5 | CK2 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 2 |
| NOP56 | S520 | 5.1 | CK2 | 63% | 61% | −2% | 2.1 |
| EGFR | Y1197 | ND | EGFR | 34% | 22% | −12% | 0.8 |
| HDAC2 | S394 | 0.1 | CK2 | 100% | 86% | −14% | 1.7 |
‘ND’ means that this phosphorylation site was not identified by conventional phosphoproteomic strategy.
Figure 4Network analysis of resistance-related elevated phosphorylation in drug sensitive and resistant lung cancer cells.
(a) Protein network of EGFR and CK2 substrates. Significantly regulated substrates for up and downregulation are shown in red and green, respectively. The size of circle indicates the expression level of phosphorylation stoichiometry. A duplicate protein name means that the different sites were identified within the same protein. (b) Validation of the quantitation results of EGFR and CDK1 phosphorylation sites (pY1197 and pS39), protein levels and mRNA levels by mass spectrometry (MS), Western blotting (WB) and real-time RT–PCR (qPCR).