| Literature DB >> 32576592 |
Daniel G Delafield1, Lingjun Li2.
Abstract
Growing implications of glycosylation in physiological occurrences and human disease have prompted intensive focus on revealing glycomic perturbations through absolute and relative quantification. Empowered by seminal methodologies and increasing capacity for detection, identification, and characterization, the past decade has provided a significant increase in the number of suitable strategies for glycan and glycopeptide quantification. Mass-spectrometry-based strategies for glycomic quantitation have grown to include metabolic incorporation of stable isotopes, deposition of mass difference and mass defect isotopic labels, and isobaric chemical labeling, providing researchers with ample tools for accurate and robust quantitation. Beyond this, workflows have been designed to harness instrument capability for label-free quantification, and numerous software packages have been developed to facilitate reliable spectrum scoring. In this review, we present and highlight the most recent advances in chemical labeling and associated techniques for glycan and glycopeptide quantification.Entities:
Keywords: chemical labeling; glycan; glycopeptide; glycosylation; isobaric labeling; isotopic labeling; mass spectrometry; metabolic labeling; posttranslational modification; quantitation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 32576592 PMCID: PMC8724918 DOI: 10.1074/mcp.R120.002095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics ISSN: 1535-9476 Impact factor: 5.911
Fig. 1Graphical representation of quantitative glycomics and glycoproteomic analyses. Glycomic evaluations, as discussed here, may take place at either the glycan or glycopeptide level and pursued through incorporation of stable isotopes, deposition of isotopic labels for MS1 level quantification, isobaric labeling for MS2 level quantitation, or label-free comparison. Both data-dependent and data-independent acquisition are effectively employed for glycome or glycopeptide detection with numerous software tools available to perform identification and quantitative analysis.
Fig. 2Overview of isotopic labeling with cellular O-glycome reporter/amplification (ICORA). Cells undergoing condition A are incubated with Ac3GalNAc-BnH7 while cells undergoing condition B are incubated with Ac3GalNAc-BnD7. Ac3GalNAc-Bn crosses the plasma membrane, is de-esterified in the cytosol, taken up into the Golgi apparatus, and modified by endogenous glycosyltransferases to produce light H7 or heavy D7 labeled Bn-O-glycans before being secreted into the media. Media from the two conditions is mixed together and heavy and light Bn-O-glycans are purified, permethylated, and analyzed by mass spectrometry. A 7 Da mass shift distinguishes the light and heavy O-glycans, enabling quantification of shifts in relative abundance and comparison of O-glycans in condition A versus condition B. Reprinted from Kudelka et al. (58) with permission from the author.
Fig. 3NO) in the light DiPyrO tag; H) in the heavy DiPyrO tag.Bottom, workflow for the relative quantification of DiPyrO-labeled N-glycans illustrating the microenvironment. Adapted from Chen et al. (66) with permission.
Fig. 4Purple dot: 13C, orange dot: 2H, red dot: 15N. Right, ESI-MS/MS fragmentation comparison of aminoxyTMT-labeled and SUGAR-labeled N-glycans. AminoxyTMT-labeled H8N2 ([aminoxyTMT − H8N2 + 2H]2+) at NCE 25 (A) and 30 (C), SUGAR-labeled H8N2 ([SUGAR − H8N2 + 2H]2+) at NCE 25 (B) and 30 (D). Adapted from Feng et al. (68) with permission.
Comparisons of labeling strategies for glycan quantitation
| Type | Method name | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metabolic incorporation/isotopic labeling | ICORA ( | Improved reporting signal through increased O-glycan abundance, increased enrichment efficiency, optimal labeling efficiency | Only validated for O-glycans, time-restrictive, growth conditions must be carefully monitored |
| Isotopic labeling | Dimethyl labeling | Low-cost reagents, facile labeling, slight increase in glycan hydrophobicity | Limited throughput (low multiplexing capacity) |
| Isotopic labeling | Isotopic permethylation ( | Significant improvements in glycan hydrophobicity and ionization efficiency, eight-channel multiplexing | Toxicity of iodomethane reagents |
| Isotopic labeling | Custom tags ( | Highly customizable, effective in bespoke tagging workflows, stabilization of sialic acid residues, fixing of permanent positive charges | Concerns over labeling efficiency, need for optimization and method design |
| Mass defect | DiPyrO ( | Greatly reduced spectral complexity, elimination of redundant sampling, precursor coisolation does not affect quantification, amine reactive tag (may be applied to glycans, peptides, and proteins) | Low multiplexing capacity (3-channels), requires higher-resolution MS1 scans, current instrumentation outperforms multiplexing capacity |
| Mass defect | mdSUGAR ( | Labeling at glycan reducing end and on sialic acids, improved glycan fragmentation compared with commercial tags | Carbonyl-reactive tags are not as flexible in peptide and protein quantification, offer three-channel multiplexing |
| Isobaric labeling | QUANTITY ( | Improved fragmentation and reporter ion signal, high labeling efficiency. Quaternary amin imparts permanent positive charge | Requires multistep synthesis, offers four-channel multiplexing |
| Isobaric labeling | TMT | Commercial quality control, well-characterized protocols, eight-channel multiplexing, fits within Thermo “ecosystem” | Cost-preventative |
| Isobaric labeling | SUGAR ( | Improved b/y glycan fragment series for identification, synthesized in three high-yield steps, near 100% labeling efficiency, higher reporter ion signal for quantitation | Offers four-plex multiplexing |
Fig. 5Schematic illustration for the HOTMAQ method.A, synthetic peptides are labeled with four-plex iDiLeu at different concentrations and spiked into 12-plex DiLeu-labeled analytes. B, labeled peptides are detected with identical chromatographic elution profiles as five precursor ion clusters. The iDiLeu labeled-synthetic peptides are used to generate internal calibration curves to quantify the total amount of multiplexed target peptides. iDiLeu d0-labeled synthetic trigger peptides and multiplexed DiLeu-labeled target peptides are separated in MS1 spectra by a mass offset of 4.01 Da, which enables synthetic trigger peptides to initiate quantitative analysis of target peptides via MS2 regardless of target peptide precursor abundances. C, real-time MS2 analysis of d0-labeled synthetic peptides by matching MS2 spectrum to a product mass inclusion list unambiguously triggers fragmentation of 12-plex DiLeu-labeled target peptides in a predefined monitoring window. Acquisition parameters alternate between a low-resolution scan for monitoring d0-labeled trigger peptides and a high-resolution scan for quantifying 12-plex DiLeu-labeled target peptides. Fragment ions of 12-plex DiLeu-labeled target peptides are selected for synchronous precursor selection (SPS)-MS3 analysis. D, the relative abundance of each 12-plex DiLeu-labeled peptide is accurately determined by targeted SPS-MS3 acquisition at a resolving power of 60K (at m/z 200). The absolute amounts of target peptides are quantified by integrating the total amount obtained using the standard curve. Adapted from Zhong et al. (156) with permission.
Fig. 6B, overview of Glyco-DIA libraries. The Glyco-DIA library consists of several sublibraries, including Tn-DIA libraries from SC cell lines, T-DIA libraries from WT cell lines, T-DIA library from human blood serum, and in silico expanded libraries. LFQ, label-free quantification. Reprinted from Ye et al. (183) with permission from the author.