4.7 Article

Evaluation and Improvement of Quantification Accuracy in Isobaric Mass Tag-Based Protein Quantification Experiments

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 2537-2547

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00066

关键词

quantitative mass spectrometry; TMT; iTRAQ; label-free quantification

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [310030B_149641]
  2. EU-PloidyNet
  3. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-People-ITN) [(2013)607722]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The multiplexing capabilities of isobaric mass tag based protein quantification, such as Tandem Mass Tags or Isobaric Tag for Relative and Absolute Quantitation have dramatically increased the scope of mass spectrometry-based proteomics studies. Not only does the technology allow for the simultaneous quantification of multiple samples in a single MS injection, but its seamless compatibility with extensive sample prefractionation methods allows for comprehensive studies of complex proteomes. However, reporter ion-based quantification has often been criticized for limited quantification accuracy due to interference from coeluting peptides and peptide fragments. In this study, we investigate the extent of this problem and propose an effective and easy-to-implement remedy that relies on spiking a 6-protein calibration mixture to the samples. We evaluated our ratio adjustment approach using two large scale TMT 10-plex data sets derived from a human cancer and noncancer cell line as well as E. coli cells grown at two different conditions. Furthermore, we analyzed a complex 2-proteome artificial sample mixture and investigated the precision of TMT and precursor ion intensity-based label free quantification. Studying the protein set identified by both methods, we found that differentially abundant proteins were assigned dramatically higher statistical significance when quantified using TMT. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD003346.

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