| Literature DB >> 32924499 |
Manuel David Peris-Díaz1, Roman Guran2,3, Ondrej Zitka2,3, Vojtech Adam2,3, Artur Krężel1.
Abstract
Identification of metal-binding sites in proteins and understanding metal-coupled protein folding mechanisms are aspects of high importance for the structure-to-function relationship. Mass spectrometry (MS) has brought a powerful adjunct perspective to structural biology, obtaining from metal-to-protein stoichiometry to quaternary structure information. Currently, the different experimental and/or instrumental setups usually require the use of multiple data analysis software, and in some cases, they lack some of the main data analysis steps (MS processing, scoring, identification). Here, we present a comprehensive data analysis pipeline that addresses charge-state deconvolution, statistical scoring, and mass assignment for native MS, bottom-up, and native top-down with emphasis on metal-protein complexes. We have evaluated all of the approaches using assemblies of increasing complexity, including free and chemically labeled proteins, from low- to high-resolution MS. In all cases, the results have been compared with common software and proved how MetaOdysseus outperformed them.Entities:
Keywords: Cys-rich; R package; mass spectrometry; metalloprotein; zinc
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32924499 PMCID: PMC7786378 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Proteome Res ISSN: 1535-3893 Impact factor: 4.466
Figure 1High-resolution MS for a Zn7MT2 IAM Cys-labeled (A) and the deconvolved neutral mass spectrum (B) with assigned DScores above each peak and the global UniScore. Comparison between MetaOdysseus and UniDec for the R2 (C) and UniScore (D) values obtained.
Figure 2Comparison between MetaOdysseus and Bruker Daltonics for the analysis of enzymatically digested for Zn0-7MT2 and Zn0-7MT3 proteins analyzed with MALDI-MS; * stands for a level of significance 0.05, n.s stands for no significance level for the mean comparison between the groups, FDR and F1 stand for false discovery rates and Fscore, respectively.
Figure 3Relationship between the peptide-spectrum matches (PSMs) and the false discovery rate (FDR) obtained for the different software compared (MetaOdysseus, MS-GF+, and Bruker Daltonics) for the bottom-up MS analysis.
Figure 4Comparison between MetaOdysseus (red line), MS-GF+ (black line), and Mascot (green line) for the peptide-spectrum matches (PSMs) results obtained in terms of their sensitivity, specificity, and precision. (A) Precision–recall curves for the different FDR cutoffs. (B) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis at different FDR cutoffs. (C) Analysis of the sensitivity achieved at different FDR cutoffs obtained.
Figure 5Native top-down experiments. (A) Venn diagram for the TP and FP for the deconvoluted masses obtained with MetaOdysseus and with eTHRASH. (B) Assignment of the CID fragments for the native data-independent top-down experiments at different collision energies. (C) Statistical significance assessment for the protein identification from the spectra presented in (B). The score was computed based on a binomial distribution probability and then its significance estimated with an empirical p-value via permutation tests.