An assessment of software solutions for the analysis of mass spectrometry based quantitative proteomics data

Over the past decade, a series of experimental strategies for mass spectrometry based quantitative proteomics and corresponding computational methodology for the processing of the resulting data have been generated. We provide here an overview of the main quantification principles and available software solutions for the analysis of data generated by liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Three conceptually different methods to perform quantitative LC-MS experiments have been introduced. In the first, quantification is achieved by spectral counting, in the second via differential stable isotopic labeling, and in the third by using the ion current in label-free LC-MS measurements. We discuss here advantages and challenges of each quantification approach and assess available software solutions with respect to their instrument compatibility and processing functionality. This review therefore serves as a starting point for researchers to choose an appropriate software solution for quantitative proteomic experiments based on their experimental and analytical requirements.     

Label-free quantification and shotgun analysis of complex proteomes by one-dimensional SDS-PAGE/NanoLC-MS: evaluation for the large scale analysis of inflammatory human endothelial cells

To perform differential studies of complex protein mixtures, strategies for reproducible and accurate quantification are needed. Here, we evaluated a quantitative proteomic workflow based on nanoLC-MS/MS analysis on an LTQ-Orbitrap-VELOS mass spectrometer and label-free quantification using the MFPaQ software. In such label-free quantitative studies, a compromise has to be found between two requirements: repeatability of sample processing and MS measurements, allowing an accurate quantification, and high proteomic coverage of the sample, allowing quantification of minor species. The latter is generally achieved through sample fractionation, which may induce experimental bias during the label-free comparison of samples processed, and analyzed independently. In this work, we wanted to evaluate the performances of MS intensity-based label-free quantification when a complex protein sample is fractionated by one-dimensional SDS-PAGE. We first tested the efficiency of the analysis without protein fractionation and could achieve quite good quantitative repeatability in single-run analysis (median coefficient of variation of 5%, 99% proteins with coefficient of variation <48%). We show that sample fractionation by one-dimensional SDS-PAGE is associated with a moderate decrease of quantitative measurement repeatability while largely improving the depth of proteomic coverage. We then applied the method for a large scale proteomic study of the human endothelial cell response to inflammatory cytokines, such as TNFα, interferon γ, and IL1β, which allowed us to finely decipher at the proteomic level the biological pathways involved in endothelial cell response to proinflammatory cytokines.     

A Probabilistic Framework for Peptide and Protein Quantification from Data-Dependent and Data-Independent LC-MS Proteomics Experiments

Abstract A probability-based quantification framework is presented for the calculation of relative peptide and protein abundance in label-free and label-dependent LC-MS proteomics data. The results are accompanied by credible intervals and regulation probabilities. The algorithm takes into account data uncertainties via Poisson statistics modified by a noise contribution that is determined automatically during an initial normalization stage. Protein quantification relies on assignments of component peptides to the acquired data. These assignments are generally of variable reliability and may not be present across all of the experiments comprising an analysis. It is also possible for a peptide to be identified to more than one protein in a given mixture. For these reasons the algorithm accepts a prior probability of peptide assignment for each intensity measurement. The model is constructed in such a way that outliers of any type can be automatically reweighted. Two discrete normalization methods can be employed. The first method is based on a user-defined subset of peptides, while the second method relies on the presence of a dominant background of endogenous peptides for which the concentration is assumed to be unaffected. Normalization is performed using the same computational and statistical procedures employed by the main quantification algorithm. The performance of the algorithm will be illustrated on example data sets, and its utility demonstrated for typical proteomics applications. The quantification algorithm supports relative protein quantification based on precursor and product ion intensities acquired by means of data-dependent methods, originating from all common isotopically-labeled approaches, as well as label-free ion intensity-based data-independent methods.     

Mass Spectrometry-Based Approaches Toward Absolute Quantitative Proteomics

Mass spectrometry has served as a major tool for the discipline of proteomics to catalogue proteins in an unprecedented scale. With chemical and metabolic techniques for stable isotope labeling developed over the past decade, it is now routinely used as a method for relative quantification to provide valuable information on alteration of protein abundance in a proteome-wide scale. More recently, absolute or stoichiometric quantification of proteome is becoming feasible, in particular, with the development of strategies with isotope-labeled standards composed of concatenated peptides. On the other hand, remarkable progress has been also made in label-free quantification methods based on the number of identified peptides. Here we review these mass spectrometry-based approaches for absolute quantification of proteome and discuss their implications.Key Words: Quantitative proteomics, mass spectrometry, absolute quantification, stable isotope labeling, label-free.     

Comparison of label-free and label-based strategies for proteome analysis of hepatoma cell lines

Within the past decade numerous methods for quantitative proteome analysis have been developed of which all exhibit particular advantages and disadvantages. Here, we present the results of a study aiming for a comprehensive comparison of ion-intensity based label-free proteomics and two label-based approaches using isobaric tags incorporated at the peptide and protein levels, respectively. As model system for our quantitative analysis we used the three hepatoma cell lines HepG2, Hep3B and SK-Hep-1. Four biological replicates of each cell line were quantitatively analyzed using an RPLC–MS/MS setup. Each quantification experiment was performed twice to determine technical variances of the different quantification techniques. We were able to show that the label-free approach by far outperforms both TMT methods regarding proteome coverage, as up to threefold more proteins were reproducibly identified in replicate measurements. Furthermore, we could demonstrate that all three methods show comparable reproducibility concerning protein quantification, but slightly differ in terms of accuracy. Here, label-free was found to be less accurate than both TMT approaches. It was also observed that the introduction of TMT labels at the protein level reduces the effect of underestimation of protein ratios, which is commonly monitored in case of TMT peptide labeling. Previously reported differences in protein expression between the particular cell lines were furthermore reproduced, which confirms the applicability of each investigated quantification method to study proteomic differences in such biological systems. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Biomarkers: A Proteomic Challenge.     

Biomedical applications of ion mobility-enhanced data-independent acquisition-based label-free quantitative proteomics

Mass spectrometry-based proteomics greatly benefited from recent improvements in instrument performance and the development of bioinformatics solutions facilitating the high-throughput quantification of proteins in complex biological samples. In addition to quantification approaches using stable isotope labeling, label-free quantification has emerged as the method of choice for many laboratories. Over the last years, data-independent acquisition approaches have gained increasing popularity. The integration of ion mobility separation into commercial instruments enabled researchers to achieve deep proteome coverage from limiting sample amounts. Additionally, ion mobility provides a new dimension of separation for the quantitative assessment of complex proteomes, facilitating precise label-free quantification even of highly complex samples. The present work provides a thorough overview of the combination of ion mobility and data-independent acquisition-based label-free quantification LC-MS and its applications in biomedical research.     

Identification and quantification of basic and acidic proteins using solution-based two-dimensional protein fractionation and label-free or 18O-labeling mass spectrometry

Reduction in sample complexity enables more thorough proteomic analysis using mass spectrometry (MS). A solution-based two-dimensional (2D) protein fractionation system, ProteomeLab PF 2D, has recently become available for sample fractionation and complexity reduction. PF 2D resolves proteins by isoelectric point (pI) and hydrophobicity in the first and second dimensions, respectively. It offers distinctive advantages over 2D gel electrophoresis with respects to automation of the fractionation processes and characterization of proteins having extreme pIs. Besides fractionation, PF 2D is equipped with built-in UV detectors intended for relative quantification of proteins in contrasting samples using its software tools. In this study, we utilized PF 2D for the identification of basic and acidic proteins in mammalian cells, which are generally under-characterized. In addition, mass spectrometric methods (label-free and 18O-labeling) were employed to complement protein quantification based on UV absorbance. Our studies indicate that the selection of chromatographic fractions could impact protein identification and that the UV-based quantification for contrasting complex proteomes is constrained by coelution or partial coelution of proteins. In contrast, the quantification post PF 2D chromatography based on label-free or 18O-labeling mass spectrometry provides an alternative platform for basic/acidic protein identification and quantification. With the use of HCT116 colon carcinoma cells, a total of 305 basic and 183 acidic proteins was identified. Quantitative proteomics revealed that 17 of these proteins were differentially expressed in HCT116 p53-/- cells.     

基于质谱的定量蛋白质组学策略和方法研究进展

定量蛋白质组学已经成为组学领域研究的热点之一.相关实验技术和计算方法的不断创新极大地促进了定量蛋白质组学的飞速发展.常用的定量蛋白质组学策略按照是否需要稳定同位素标记可以分为无标定量和有标定量两大类.每类策略又产生了众多定量方法和工具,它们一方面推动了定量蛋白质组学的深入发展;另一方面,也在实验策略与技术的发展过程中不断更新.因此对这些定量实验策略和方法进行系统总结和归纳将有助于定量蛋白质组学的研究.本文主要从方法学角度全面归纳了目前定量蛋白质组学研究的相关策略和算法,详述了无标定量和有标定量的具体算法流程并比较了各自特点,还对以研究蛋白质绝对丰度为目标的绝对定量算法进行了总结,列举了常用的定量软件和工具,最后概述了定量结果的质量控制方法,对定量蛋白质组学方法发展的前景进行了展望.     

定量蛋白质组学无标记定量方法的研究进展

依靠质谱技术的蛋白质组学快速发展,寻求速度快、重复性好以及准确度高的定量方法是该领域的一项艰巨任务,定量蛋白质组学分支领域应运而生．其中,无标记定量方法以其样品制备简单、耗材费用低廉以及结果数据分析便捷等优点渐露锋芒．无标记定量方法通常分为信号强度法和谱图计数法两大类．本文在这两种无标记定量方法计算原理的基础上,针对各种常用的无标记定量方法及最新进展做一个较为全面的介绍,并将详细讨论两类方法的异同点,以及目前蛋白质组学中无标记定量方法所面临的主要挑战,希望能为这一领域的研究人员在选择无标记定量方法时提供一个合理的参考．     

A novel alignment method and multiple filters for exclusion of unqualified peptides to enhance label-free quantification using peptide intensity in LC-MS/MS

Though many software packages have been developed to perform label-free quantification of proteins in complex biological samples using peptide intensities generated by LC-MS/MS, two critical issues are generally ignored in this field: (i) peptides have multiple elution patterns across runs in an experiment, and (ii) many peptides cannot be used for protein quantification. To address these two key issues, we have developed a novel alignment method to enable accurate peptide peak retention time determination and multiple filters to eliminate unqualified peptides for protein quantification. Repeatability and linearity have been tested using six very different samples, i.e., standard peptides, kidney tissue lysates, HT29-MTX cell lysates, depleted human serum, human serum albumin-bound proteins, and standard proteins spiked in kidney tissue lysates. At least 90.8% of the proteins (up to 1,390) had CVs ≤ 30% across 10 technical replicates, and at least 93.6% (up to 2,013) had R(2) ≥ 0.9500 across 7 concentrations. Identical amounts of standard protein spiked in complex biological samples achieved a CV of 8.6% across eight injections of two groups. Further assessment was made by comparing mass spectrometric results to immunodetection, and consistent results were obtained. The new approach has novel and specific features enabling accurate label-free quantification.     

MassChroQ: a versatile tool for mass spectrometry quantification

Recently, many software tools have been developed to perform quantification in LC-MS analyses. However, most of them are specific to either a quantification strategy (e.g. label-free or isotopic labelling) or a mass-spectrometry system (e.g. high or low resolution). In this context, we have developed MassChroQ (Mass Chromatogram Quantification), a versatile software that performs LC-MS data alignment and peptide quantification by peak area integration on extracted ion chromatograms. MassChroQ is suitable for quantification with or without labelling and is not limited to high-resolution systems. Peptides of interest (for example all the identified peptides) can be determined automatically, or manually by providing targeted m/z and retention time values. It can handle large experiments that include protein or peptide fractionation (as SDS-PAGE, 2-D LC). It is fully configurable. Every processing step is traceable, the produced data are in open standard formats and its modularity allows easy integration into proteomic pipelines. The output results are ready for use in statistical analyses. Evaluation of MassChroQ on complex label-free data obtained from low and high-resolution mass spectrometers showed low CVs for technical reproducibility (1.4%) and high coefficients of correlation to protein quantity (0.98). MassChroQ is freely available under the GNU General Public Licence v3.0 at http://pappso.inra.fr/bioinfo/masschroq/.     

The importance of peptide detectability for protein identification, quantification, and experiment design in MS/MS proteomics

Peptide detectability is defined as the probability that a peptide is identified in an LC-MS/MS experiment and has been useful in providing solutions to protein inference and label-free quantification. Previously, predictors for peptide detectability trained on standard or complex samples were proposed. Although the models trained on complex samples may benefit from the large training data sets, it is unclear to what extent they are affected by the unequal abundances of identified proteins. To address this challenge and improve detectability prediction, we present a new algorithm for the iterative learning of peptide detectability from complex mixtures. We provide evidence that the new method approximates detectability with useful accuracy and, based on its design, can be used to interpret the outcome of other learning strategies. We studied the properties of peptides from the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans and found that at standard quantities, its tryptic peptides can be roughly classified as either detectable or undetectable, with a relatively small fraction having medium detectability. We extend the concept of detectability from peptides to proteins and apply the model to predict the behavior of a replicate LC-MS/MS experiment from a single analysis. Finally, our study summarizes a theoretical framework for peptide/protein identification and label-free quantification.     

Computational methods for the comparative quantification of proteins in label-free LCn-MS experiments

Liquid chromatography (LC) coupled to electrospray mass spectrometry (MS) is well established in high-throughput proteomics. The technology enables rapid identification of large numbers of proteins in a relatively short time. Comparative quantification of identified proteins from different samples is often regarded as the next step in proteomics experiments enabling the comparison of protein expression in different proteomes. Differential labeling of samples using stable isotope incorporation or conjugation is commonly used to compare protein levels between samples but these procedures are difficult to carry out in the laboratory and for large numbers of samples. Recently, comparative quantification of label-free LC(n)-MS proteomics data has emerged as an alternative approach. In this review, we discuss different computational approaches for extracting comparative quantitative information from label-free LC(n)-MS proteomics data. The procedure for computationally recovering the quantitative information is described. Furthermore, statistical tests used to evaluate the relevance of results will also be discussed.     

Validating Antibodies to the Cannabinoid CB2 Receptor: Antibody Sensitivity Is Not Evidence of Antibody Specificity

Antibody-based methods for the detection and quantification of membrane integral proteins, in particular, the G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), have been plagued with issues of primary antibody specificity. In this report, we investigate one of the most commonly utilized commercial antibodies for the cannabinoid CB2 receptor, a GPCR, using immunoblotting in combination with mass spectrometry. In this way, we were able to develop powerful negative and novel positive controls. By doing this, we are able to demonstrate that it is possible for an antibody to be sensitive for a protein of interest—in this case CB2—but still cross-react with other proteins and therefore lack specificity. Specifically, we were able to use western blotting combined with mass spectrometry to unequivocally identify CB2 protein in over-expressing cell lines. This shows that a common practice of validating antibodies with positive controls only is insufficient to ensure antibody reliability. In addition, our work is the first to develop a label-free method of protein detection using mass spectrometry that, with further refinement, could provide unequivocal identification of CB2 receptor protein in native tissues.     

Tools for Label-free Peptide Quantification

The increasing scale and complexity of quantitative proteomics studies complicate subsequent analysis of the acquired data. Untargeted label-free quantification, based either on feature intensities or on spectral counting, is a method that scales particularly well with respect to the number of samples. It is thus an excellent alternative to labeling techniques. In order to profit from this scalability, however, data analysis has to cope with large amounts of data, process them automatically, and do a thorough statistical analysis in order to achieve reliable results. We review the state of the art with respect to computational tools for label-free quantification in untargeted proteomics. The two fundamental approaches are feature-based quantification, relying on the summed-up mass spectrometric intensity of peptides, and spectral counting, which relies on the number of MS/MS spectra acquired for a certain protein. We review the current algorithmic approaches underlying some widely used software packages and briefly discuss the statistical strategies for analyzing the data.Over recent decades, mass spectrometry has become the analytical method of choice in most proteomics studies (e.g. Refs. 1–4). A standard mass spectrometric workflow allows for both protein identification and protein quantification (5) in some form. For a long time, the technology has been used mainly for qualitative assessments of protein mixtures, namely, to assess whether a specific protein is in the sample or not. However, for the majority of interesting research questions, especially in the field of systems biology, this binary information (present or not) is not sufficient (6). The necessity of more detailed information on protein expression levels drives the field of quantitative proteomics (7, 8), which enables the integration of proteomics data with other data sources and allows network-centered studies, as reviewed in Ref. 9. Recent studies show that mass-spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics experiments can provide quantitative information (relative or absolute) for large parts, if not the entire set, of expressed proteins (10–12).Since the isotope-coded affinity tag protocol was first published in 1999 (13), numerous labeling strategies have found their way into the field of quantitative proteomics (14). These include isotope-coded protein labeling (15), metabolic labeling (16, 17), and isobaric tags (18, 19). Comprehensive overviews of different quantification strategies can be found in Refs. 20 and 21. Because of the shortcomings of labeling strategies, label-free methods are increasingly gaining the interest of proteomics researchers (22, 23). In label-free quantification, no label is introduced to either of the samples. All samples are analyzed in separate LC/MS experiments, and the individual peptide properties of the individual measurements are then compared. Regardless of the quantification strategy, computational approaches for data analyses have become the critical final step of the proteomics workflow. Overviews of existing computational approaches in proteomics are provided in Refs. 24 and 25. The computational label-free quantification workflow in visualized in Fig. 1. Comparing peptide quantities using mass spectrometry remains a difficult task, because mass spectrometers have different response values for different chemical entities, and thus a direct comparison of different peptides is not possible. The computational analysis of a label-free quantitative data set consists of several steps that are mainly split in raw data signal processing and quantification. Signal processing steps comprise data reduction procedures such as baseline removal, denoising, and centroiding.Open in a separate windowFig. 1.The sample cohort that can be analyzed via label-free proteomics is not limited in size. Each sample is processed separately through the sample preparation and data acquisition pipeline. For data analysis, the data from the different LC/MS runs are combined.These steps can be accomplished in modular building blocks, or the entire analysis can be performed using monolithic analysis software. Recently, it has been shown that it is beneficial to combine modular blocks from different software tools to a consensus pipeline (26). The same study also illustrates the diversity of methods that are modularized by different software tools. In another recent publication, monolithic software packages are compared (27). In that study, the authors identify a set of seven metrics: detection sensitivity, detection consistency, intensity consistency, intensity accuracy, detection accuracy, statistical capability, and quantification accuracy. Despite the missing independence of these metrics and the loose reporting of software parameter settings, such comparative studies are of great interest to the field of quantitative proteomics. A general conclusion from these studies is that the choice of software might, to a certain degree, affect the final results of the study.Absolute quantification of peptides and proteins using intensity-based label-free methods is possible and can be done with excellent accuracy, if standard addition is used. With the help of known concentrations, calibration lines can be drawn, and absolute protein quantities can be directly inferred from these calibration measurements (28). Furthermore, it has been suggested that peptide peak intensities can be predicted and absolute quantities can be derived from these predictions (29). However, the limited accuracy of predictions or the need for peptides of known concentrations limits these approaches to selected proteins/peptides only and prevents their use on a proteome-wide scale.Spectral counting methods have also been used for the estimation of absolute concentrations on a global scale (30), albeit at drastically reduced accuracy relative to intensity-based methods. In one study, the authors used a mixture of 48 proteins with known concentrations and predicted the absolute copy number amounts of thousands of proteins based on that mixture. Despite the fact that large, proteome-wide data sets will dilute the effects of different peptide detectabilities on the individual protein level, such methods will always be limited in their accuracy of quantification.The generic nature of label-free quantification is not restricted to any model system and can also be employed with tissue or body fluids (31, 32). However, the label-free approach is more sensitive to technical deviations between LC/MS runs as information is compared between different measurements. Therefore, the reproducibility of the analytical platform is crucial for successful label-free quantification. The recent success of label-free quantification could only be accomplished through significant improvements of algorithms (33–36). An increasingly large collection of software tools for label-free proteomics have been published as open source applications or have entered the market as commercially available packages. This review aims at outlining the computational methods that are generally implemented by these software tools. Furthermore, we illustrate strengths and weaknesses of different tools. The review provides an information resource for the broad proteomics audience and does not illustrate all algorithmic details of the individual tools.     

A simple peak detection and label-free quantitation algorithm for chromatography-mass spectrometry

Background

Label-free quantitation of mass spectrometric data is one of the simplest and least expensive methods for differential expression profiling of proteins and metabolites. The need for high accuracy and performance computational label-free quantitation methods is still high in the biomarker and drug discovery research field. However, recent most advanced types of LC-MS generate huge amounts of analytical data with high scan speed, high accuracy and resolution, which is often impossible to interpret manually. Moreover, there are still issues to be improved for recent label-free methods, such as how to reduce false positive/negatives of the candidate peaks, how to expand scalability and how to enhance and automate data processing. AB3D (A simple label-free quantitation algorithm for Biomarker Discovery in Diagnostics and Drug discovery using LC-MS) has addressed these issues and has the capability to perform label-free quantitation using MS1 for proteomics study.

Results

We developed an algorithm called AB3D, a label free peak detection and quantitative algorithm using MS1 spectral data. To test our algorithm, practical applications of AB3D for LC-MS data sets were evaluated using 3 datasets. Comparisons were then carried out between widely used software tools such as MZmine 2, MSight, SuperHirn, OpenMS and our algorithm AB3D, using the same LC-MS datasets. All quantitative results were confirmed manually, and we found that AB3D could properly identify and quantify known peptides with fewer false positives and false negatives compared to four other existing software tools using either the standard peptide mixture or the real complex biological samples of Bartonella quintana (strain JK31). Moreover, AB3D showed the best reliability by comparing the variability between two technical replicates using a complex peptide mixture of HeLa and BSA samples. For performance, the AB3D algorithm is about 1.2 - 15 times faster than the four other existing software tools.

Conclusions

AB3D is a simple and fast algorithm for label-free quantitation using MS1 mass spectrometry data for large scale LC-MS data analysis with higher true positive and reasonable false positive rates. Furthermore, AB3D demonstrated the best reproducibility and is about 1.2- 15 times faster than those of existing 4 software tools.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12859-014-0376-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

The Effect of Peptide Identification Search Algorithms on MS2-Based Label-Free Protein Quantification

Abstract Several approaches exist for the quantification of proteins in complex samples processed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry followed by fragmentation analysis (MS2). One of these approaches is label-free MS2-based quantification, which takes advantage of the information computed from MS2 spectrum observations to estimate the abundance of a protein in a sample. As a first step in this approach, fragmentation spectra are typically matched to the peptides that generated them by a search algorithm. Because different search algorithms identify overlapping but non-identical sets of peptides, here we investigate whether these differences in peptide identification have an impact on the quantification of the proteins in the sample. We therefore evaluated the effect of using different search algorithms by examining the reproducibility of protein quantification in technical repeat measurements of the same sample. From our results, it is clear that a search engine effect does exist for MS2-based label-free protein quantification methods. As a general conclusion, it is recommended to address the overall possibility of search engine-induced bias in the protein quantification results of label-free MS2-based methods by performing the analysis with two or more distinct search engines.     

A comprehensive peptidome profiling technology for the identification of early detection biomarkers for lung adenocarcinoma

The mass spectrometry-based peptidomics approaches have proven its usefulness in several areas such as the discovery of physiologically active peptides or biomarker candidates derived from various biological fluids including blood and cerebrospinal fluid. However, to identify biomarkers that are reproducible and clinically applicable, development of a novel technology, which enables rapid, sensitive, and quantitative analysis using hundreds of clinical specimens, has been eagerly awaited. Here we report an integrative peptidomic approach for identification of lung cancer-specific serum peptide biomarkers. It is based on the one-step effective enrichment of peptidome fractions (molecular weight of 1,000-5,000) with size exclusion chromatography in combination with the precise label-free quantification analysis of nano-LC/MS/MS data set using Expressionist proteome server platform. We applied this method to 92 serum samples well-managed with our SOP (standard operating procedure) (30 healthy controls and 62 lung adenocarcinoma patients), and quantitatively assessed the detected 3,537 peptide signals. Among them, 118 peptides showed significantly altered serum levels between the control and lung cancer groups (p<0.01 and fold change >5.0). Subsequently we identified peptide sequences by MS/MS analysis and further assessed the reproducibility of Expressionist-based quantification results and their diagnostic powers by MRM-based relative-quantification analysis for 96 independently prepared serum samples and found that APOA4 273-283, FIBA 5-16, and LBN 306-313 should be clinically useful biomarkers for both early detection and tumor staging of lung cancer. Our peptidome profiling technology can provide simple, high-throughput, and reliable quantification of a large number of clinical samples, which is applicable for diverse peptidome-targeting biomarker discoveries using any types of biological specimens.     

SAINT-MS1: protein-protein interaction scoring using label-free intensity data in affinity purification-mass spectrometry experiments

We present a statistical method SAINT-MS1 for scoring protein-protein interactions based on the label-free MS1 intensity data from affinity purification-mass spectrometry (AP-MS) experiments. The method is an extension of Significance Analysis of INTeractome (SAINT), a model-based method previously developed for spectral count data. We reformulated the statistical model for log-transformed intensity data, including adequate treatment of missing observations, that is, interactions identified in some but not all replicate purifications. We demonstrate the performance of SAINT-MS1 using two recently published data sets: a small LTQ-Orbitrap data set with three replicate purifications of single human bait protein and control purifications and a larger drosophila data set targeting insulin receptor/target of rapamycin signaling pathway generated using an LTQ-FT instrument. Using the drosophila data set, we also compare and discuss the performance of SAINT analysis based on spectral count and MS1 intensity data in terms of the recovery of orthologous and literature-curated interactions. Given rapid advances in high mass accuracy instrumentation and intensity-based label-free quantification software, we expect that SAINT-MS1 will become a useful tool allowing improved detection of protein interactions in label-free AP-MS data, especially in the low abundance range.