4.8 Article

Data-Dependent Acquisition with Precursor Coisolation Improves Proteome Coverage and Measurement Throughput for Label-Free Single-Cell Proteomics

期刊

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202303415

关键词

nanoPOTS; single-cell proteomics; nanoLC; autophagy; LFQ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We developed a new method called wide window acquisition (WWA) that combines efficient sample preparation and ultra-low-flow liquid chromatography to quantify >3,000 proteins from single cells in rapid label-free analyses. WWA increased the number of identified proteins by about 40% compared to standard data-dependent acquisition. Utilizing this platform, we compared protein expression in HeLa cells with and without the essential autophagy gene atg9a, and found significant changes in 268 proteins related to innate immunity, vesicle trafficking, and protein degradation.
We combined efficient sample preparation and ultra-low-flow liquid chromatography with a newly developed data acquisition and analysis scheme termed wide window acquisition (WWA) to quantify >3,000 proteins from single cells in rapid label-free analyses. WWA employs large isolation windows to intentionally co-isolate and co-fragment adjacent precursors along with the selected precursor. Optimized WWA increased the number of MS2-identified proteins by & AP;40 % relative to standard data-dependent acquisition. For a 40-min LC gradient operated at & AP;15 nL/min, we identified an average of 3,524 proteins per single-cell-sized aliquot of protein digest. Reducing the active gradient to 20 min resulted in a modest 10 % decrease in proteome coverage. Using this platform, we compared protein expression between single HeLa cells having an essential autophagy gene, atg9a, knocked out, with their isogenic WT parental line. Similar proteome coverage was observed, and 268 proteins were significantly up- or downregulated. Protein upregulation primarily related to innate immunity, vesicle trafficking and protein degradation.

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

4.8
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