4.7 Review

Quantitative Proteomics Using Isobaric Labeling: A Practical Guide

期刊

GENOMICS PROTEOMICS & BIOINFORMATICS
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 689-706

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gpb.2021.08.012

关键词

Quantitative proteomics; Isobaric labeling; iTRAQ; TMT; Mass spectrometry

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFA0507801, 2018YFA0507103]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31900925]
  3. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isobaric labeling technology has become a key tool for comparing protein expression in biological samples, although challenges remain in terms of quantitative accuracy and precision. The different types of isobaric mass tags and advantages and disadvantages of the labeling method are detailed, along with precautions needed at each step of the workflow for reliable quantification results. The broad applications of isobaric labeling technology in biological and clinical studies, with a focus on thermal proteome profiling and proteogenomics, are also discussed.
In the past decade, relative proteomic quantification using isobaric labeling technology has developed into a key tool for comparing the expression of proteins in biological samples. Although its multiplexing capacity and flexibility make this a valuable technology for addressing various biological questions, its quantitative accuracy and precision still pose significant challenges to the reliability of its quantification results. Here, we give a detailed overview of the different kinds of isobaric mass tags and the advantages and disadvantages of the isobaric labeling method. We also discuss which precautions should be taken at each step of the isobaric labeling workflow, to obtain reliable quantification results in large-scale quantitative proteomics experiments. In the last section, we discuss the broad applications of the isobaric labeling technology in biological and clinical studies, with an emphasis on thermal proteome profiling and proteogenomics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据