Jeniffer V Quijada1,2, Nicholas D Schmitt1,2, Joseph P Salisbury1,2, Jared R Auclair1,2, Jeffrey N Agar1,2,3. 1. Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Northeastern University , 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States. 2. Barnett Institute of Chemical and Biological Analysis, Northeastern University , 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States. 3. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Northeastern University , 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States.
Abstract
Stable isotope labeling techniques for quantitative top-down proteomics face unique challenges. These include unpredictable mass shifts following isotope labeling, which impedes analysis of unknown proteins and complex mixtures and exponentially greater susceptibility to incomplete isotope incorporation, manifesting as broadening of labeled intact protein peaks. Like popular bottom-up isotope labeling techniques, most top-down labeling methods are restricted to defined media/feed as well as amino acid auxotrophic organisms. We present a labeling method optimized for top-down proteomics that overcomes these challenges. We demonstrated this method through the spiking of 13C-sugar or 2H-water into standard laboratory feedstocks, resulting in tunable intact protein mass increases (TIPMI). After mixing of labeled and unlabeled samples, direct comparison of light and heavy peaks allowed for the relative quantitation of intact proteins in three popular model organisms, including prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms and an animal. This internal standard method proved to be more accurate than label-free quantitation in our hands. Advantages over top-down SILAC include working equally well in nutrient-rich media, conceivably expanding applicability to any organism and all classes of biomolecules, not requiring high-resolving power MS for quantitation and being relatively inexpensive.
Stable isotope labeling techniques for quantitative top-down proteomics face unique challenges. These include unpredictable mass shifts following isotope labeling, which impedes analysis of unknown proteins and complex mixtures and exponentially greater susceptibility to incomplete isotope incorporation, manifesting as broadening of labeled intact protein peaks. Like popular bottom-up isotope labeling techniques, most top-down labeling methods are restricted to defined media/feed as well as amino acid auxotrophic organisms. We present a labeling method optimized for top-down proteomics that overcomes these challenges. We demonstrated this method through the spiking of 13C-sugar or n class="Chemical">2H-water into standard laboratory feedstocks, resulting in tunable intact protein mass increases (TIPMI). After mixing of labeled and unlabeled samples, direct comparison of light and heavy peaks allowed for the relative quantitation of intact proteins in three popular model organisms, including prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms and an animal. This internal standard method proved to be more accurate than label-free quantitation in our hands. Advantages over top-down SILAC include working equally well in nutrient-rich media, conceivably expanding applicability to any organism and all classes of biomolecules, not requiring high-resolving power MS for quantitation and being relatively inexpensive.
Authors: Julian P Whitelegge; Jonathan E Katz; Katianna A Pihakari; Rebecca Hale; Rodrigo Aguilera; Stephen M Gómez; Kym F Faull; Dmitrii Vavilin; Willem Vermaas Journal: Phytochemistry Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.072
Authors: Robert Busch; Yoo-Kyeong Kim; Richard A Neese; Valerie Schade-Serin; Michelle Collins; Mohamad Awada; James L Gardner; Carine Beysen; Michael E Marino; Lisa M Misell; Marc K Hellerstein Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2006-01-24
Authors: Nadia Rachdaoui; Leanne Austin; Eric Kramer; Michael J Previs; Vernon E Anderson; Takhar Kasumov; Stephen F Previs Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: John F Kellie; Adam D Catherman; Kenneth R Durbin; John C Tran; Jeremiah D Tipton; Jeremy L Norris; Charles E Witkowski; Paul M Thomas; Neil L Kelleher Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Sheng Pan; Ruedi Aebersold; Ru Chen; John Rush; David R Goodlett; Martin W McIntosh; Jing Zhang; Teresa A Brentnall Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Stephen F Previs; Richard Fatica; Visvanathan Chandramouli; James C Alexander; Henri Brunengraber; Bernard R Landau Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-12-23 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Timothy W Rhoads; Christopher M Rose; Derek J Bailey; Nicholas M Riley; Rosalynn C Molden; Amelia J Nestler; Anna E Merrill; Lloyd M Smith; Alexander S Hebert; Michael S Westphall; David J Pagliarini; Benjamin A Garcia; Joshua J Coon Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 6.986