4.7 Article

Multi-Q: A fully automated tool for multiplexed protein quantitation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 5, 期 9, 页码 2328-2338

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr060132c

关键词

dynamic range; iTRAQ; mass spectrometry; multiplexed protein quantitation; Multi-Q; degenerate peptide filtration; normalization; protein quantitation; proteomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The iTRAQ labeling method combined with shotgun proteomic techniques represents a new dimension in multiplexed quantitation for relative protein expression measurement in different cell states. To expedite the analysis of vast amounts of spectral data, we present a fully automated software package, called Multi-Q, for multiplexed iTRAQ-based quantitation in protein profiling. Multi-Q is designed as a generic platform that can accommodate various input data formats from search engines and mass spectrometer manufacturers. To calculate peptide ratios, the software automatically processes iTRAQ's signature peaks, including peak detection, background subtraction, isotope correction, and normalization to remove systematic errors. Furthermore, Multi-Q allows users to define their own data-filtering thresholds based on semiempirical values or statistical models so that the computed results of fold changes in peptide ratios are statistically significant. This feature facilitates the use of Multi-Q with various instrument types with different dynamic ranges, which is an important aspect of iTRAQ analysis. The performance of Multi-Q is evaluated with a mixture of 10 standard proteins and human Jurkat T cells. The results are consistent with expected protein ratios and thus demonstrate the high accuracy, full automation, and high-throughput capability of Multi-Q as a large-scale quantitation proteomics tool. These features allow rapid interpretation of output from large proteomic datasets without the need for manual validation. Executable Multi-Q files are available on Windows platform at http:// ms.iis.sinica.edu.tw/Multi-Q/.

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