4.6 Review

Data-independent acquisition-based SWATH-MS for quantitative proteomics: a tutorial

Journal

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/msb.20178126

Keywords

data-independent acquisition; mass spectrometry; quantitative proteomics; SWATH-MS; systems biology

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Grant [PZ00P3_161435]
  2. ERC [AdG-233226, AdG-670821]
  3. PhosphoNetX Project of SystemsX.ch
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [31003A_166435]
  5. H2020 - PrECISE [668858]
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PZ00P3_161435] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many research questions in fields such as personalized medicine, drug screens or systems biology depend on obtaining consistent and quantitatively accurate proteomics data from many samples. SWATH-MS is a specific variant of data-independent acquisition (DIA) methods and is emerging as a technology that combines deep proteome coverage capabilities with quantitative consistency and accuracy. In a SWATH-MS measurement, all ionized peptides of a given sample that fall within a specified mass range are fragmented in a systematic and unbiased fashion using rather large precursor isolation windows. To analyse SWATH-MS data, a strategy based on peptide-centric scoring has been established, which typically requires prior knowledge about the chromatographic and mass spectrometric behaviour of peptides of interest in the form of spectral libraries and peptide query parameters. This tutorial provides guidelines on how to set up and plan a SWATH-MS experiment, how to perform the mass spectrometric measurement and how to analyse SWATH-MS data using peptide-centric scoring. Furthermore, concepts on how to improve SWATH-MS data acquisition, potential trade-offs of parameter settings and alternative data analysis strategies are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available