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.     

IsobariQ: software for isobaric quantitative proteomics using IPTL, iTRAQ, and TMT

Isobaric peptide labeling plays an important role in relative quantitative comparisons of proteomes. Isobaric labeling techniques utilize MS/MS spectra for relative quantification, which can be either based on the relative intensities of reporter ions in the low mass region (iTRAQ and TMT) or on the relative intensities of quantification signatures throughout the spectrum due to isobaric peptide termini labeling (IPTL). Due to the increased quantitative information found in MS/MS fragment spectra generated by the recently developed IPTL approach, new software was required to extract the quantitative information. IsobariQ was specifically developed for this purpose; however, support for the reporter ion techniques iTRAQ and TMT is also included. In addition, to address recently emphasized issues about heterogeneity of variance in proteomics data sets, IsobariQ employs the statistical software package R and variance stabilizing normalization (VSN) algorithms available therein. Finally, the functionality of IsobariQ is validated with data sets of experiments using 6-plex TMT and IPTL. Notably, protein substrates resulting from cleavage by proteases can be identified as shown for caspase targets in apoptosis.     

Combination of online enzyme digestion with stable isotope labeling for high‐throughput quantitative proteome analysis

Various enzyme reactors and online enzyme digestion strategies have been developed in recent years. These reactors greatly enhanced the detection sensitivity and proteome coverage in qualitative proteomics. However, these devices have higher rates of miscleavage in protein digestion. Therefore, we investigated the effect of online enzyme digestion on the quantification accuracy of quantitative proteomics using chemical or metabolic isotope labeling approaches. The incomplete digestion would introduce some unexpected variations in comparative quantification when the samples are digested and then chemically isotope labeled in different aliquots. Even when identical protein aliquots are processed on these devices using post‐digestion chemical isotope labeling and the CVs of the ratios controlled to less than 50% in replicate analyses, about 10% of the quantified proteins have a ratio greater than two‐fold, whereas in theory the ratio is 1:1. Interestingly, the incomplete digestion with enzyme reactor is not a problem when metabolic isotope labeling samples were processed because the proteins are isotopically labeled in vivo prior to their simultaneous digestion within the reactor. Our results also demonstrated that both high quantification accuracy and high proteome coverage can be achieved in comparative proteome quantification using online enzyme digestion even when a limited amount of metabolic isotope labeling samples is used (1683 proteins comparatively quantified from 10⁵ Hela cells).     

Performance of isobaric and isotopic labeling in quantitative plant proteomics

Mass spectrometry has become indispensable for peptide and protein quantification in proteomics studies. When proteomics technologies are applied to understand the biology of plants, two-dimensional gel electrophoresis is still the prevalent method for protein fractionation, identification, and quantitation. In the present work, we have used LC-MS to compare an isotopic (ICPL) and isobaric (iTRAQ) chemical labeling technique to quantify proteins in the endosperm of Ricinus communis seeds at three developmental stages (IV, VI, and X). Endosperm proteins of each stage were trypsin-digested in-solution, and the same amount of peptides was labeled with ICPL and iTRAQ tags in two orders (forward and reverse). Each sample was submitted to nanoLC coupled to an LTQ-Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometer. Comparing labeling performance, iTRAQ was able to label 99.8% of all identified unique peptides, while 94.1% were labeled by ICPL. After statistical analysis, it was possible to quantify 309 (ICPL) and 321 (iTRAQ) proteins, from which 95 are specific to ICPL, 107 to iTRAQ, and 214 common to both labeling strategies. We noted that the iTRAQ quantification could be influenced by the tag. Even though the efficiency of the iTRAQ and ICPL in protein quantification depends on several parameters, both labeling methods were able to successfully quantify proteins present in the endosperm of castor bean during seed development and, when combined, increase the number of quantified proteins.     

Amino acid-coded tagging approaches in quantitative proteomics

To improve the efficiency, accuracy, reproducibility, throughput and proteome coverage of mass spectrometry-based quantitative approaches, both in vitro and in vivo tagging of particular amino acid residues of cellular proteins have been introduced to assist mass spectrometry for global-scale comparative studies of differentially expressed proteins/modifications between different biologically relevant cell states or cells at different pathological states. The basic features of these methods introduce pair-wise isotope signals of each individual peptide containing a particular type of tagged amino acid (amino acid-coded mass tagging) that originated from different cell states. In this review, the applications of major amino acid-coded mass tagging-based quantitative proteomics approaches, including isotope-coded affinity tag, isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ) and stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture are summarized in the context of their respective strengths/weakness in identifying those differentially expressed or post-translational modified proteins regulated by particular cellular stress on a genomic scale in a high-throughput manner. Importantly, these gel-free, in-spectra quantitative mechanisms have been further explored to identify/characterize large-scale protein-protein interactions involving various functional pathways. Taken together, the information about quantitative proteome changes, including multiple regulated proteins and their interconnected relationships, will provide an important insight into the molecular mechanisms, where novel targets for diagnosis and therapeutic intervention will be identified.     

Amino acid-coded tagging approaches in quantitative proteomics

To improve the efficiency, accuracy, reproducibility, throughput and proteome coverage of mass spectrometry-based quantitative approaches, both in vitro and in vivo tagging of particular amino acid residues of cellular proteins have been introduced to assist mass spectrometry for global-scale comparative studies of differentially expressed proteins/modifications between different biologically relevant cell states or cells at different pathological states. The basic features of these methods introduce pair-wise isotope signals of each individual peptide containing a particular type of tagged amino acid (amino acid-coded mass tagging) that originated from different cell states. In this review, the applications of major amino acid-coded mass tagging-based quantitative proteomics approaches, including isotope-coded affinity tag, isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ?) and stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture are summarized in the context of their respective strengths/weakness in identifying those differentially expressed or post-translational modified proteins regulated by particular cellular stress on a genomic scale in a high-throughput manner. Importantly, these gel-free, in-spectra quantitative mechanisms have been further explored to identify/characterize large-scale protein–protein interactions involving various functional pathways. Taken together, the information about quantitative proteome changes, including multiple regulated proteins and their interconnected relationships, will provide an important insight into the molecular mechanisms, where novel targets for diagnosis and therapeutic intervention will be identified.     

Orbitrap Exploris 480质谱在定量蛋白质组学应用中的优化和评测

基于数据依赖的扫描模式(data-dependent acquisition, DDA)和数据非依赖的扫描模式(data-independent acquisition,DIA)的非标记定量(label-free quantitative,LFQ)和同位素标记TMT (tandem mass tag)定量是蛋白质组学定量中较常见的技术.本文利用最新的Orbitrap Exploris 480质谱,优化了DDA、FAIMS DDA、FAIMS DIA的非标记定量方法以及TMT定量策略的关键质谱参数,并将其应用在人细胞蛋白质组、单细胞蛋白质组、血浆蛋白质组和酵母蛋白质组分析.结果表明,在DDA实验中,设置碰撞能量为27、二级谱图的分辨率为15 K、最大离子注入时间为22 ms是最佳的参数组合.针对极微量样品200 pg～5 ng,可以根据样品量相应设置最佳的质谱参数.使用200 pg和500 pg的HeLa细胞样品,分别鉴定到1 259和1 725个蛋白质,从而实现了单细胞蛋白质组学的深度覆盖.在FAIMS DDA实验中,60 min或90 min梯度时选择CV-45V的补偿电压,120 ...     

Determination of Variation Parameters as a Crucial Step in Designing TMT-Based Clinical Proteomics Experiments

In quantitative shotgun proteomic analyses by liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, a rigid study design is necessary in order to obtain statistically relevant results. Hypothesis testing, sample size calculation and power estimation are fundamental concepts that require consideration upon designing an experiment. For this reason, the reproducibility and variability of the proteomic platform needs to be assessed. In this study, we evaluate the technical (sample preparation), labeling (isobaric labels), and total (biological + technical + labeling + experimental) variability and reproducibility of a workflow that employs a shotgun LC-MS/MS approach in combination with TMT peptide labeling for the quantification of peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) proteome. We illustrate that the variability induced by TMT labeling is small when compared to the technical variation. The latter is also responsible for a substantial part of the total variation. Prior knowledge about the experimental variability allows for a correct design, a prerequisite for the detection of biologically significant disease-specific differential proteins in clinical proteomics experiments.     

Protein labeling by iTRAQ: a new tool for quantitative mass spectrometry in proteome research

A novel, MS-based approach for the relative quantification of proteins, relying on the derivatization of primary amino groups in intact proteins using isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) is presented. Due to the isobaric mass design of the iTRAQ reagents, differentially labeled proteins do not differ in mass; accordingly, their corresponding proteolytic peptides appear as single peaks in MS scans. Because quantitative information is provided by isotope-encoded reporter ions that can only be observed in MS/MS spectra, we analyzed the fragmentation behavior of ESI and MALDI ions of peptides generated from iTRAQ-labeled proteins using a TOF/TOF and/or a QTOF instrument. We observed efficient liberation of reporter ions for singly protonated peptides at low-energy collision conditions. In contrast, increased collision energies were required to liberate the iTRAQ label from lysine side chains of doubly charged peptides and, thus, to observe reporter ions suitable for relative quantification of proteins with high accuracy. We then developed a quantitative strategy that comprises labeling of intact proteins by iTRAQ followed by gel electrophoresis and peptide MS/MS analyses. As proof of principle, mixtures of five different proteins in various concentration ratios were quantified, demonstrating the general applicability of the approach presented here to quantitative MS-based proteomics.     

Tissue proteomics by one-dimensional gel electrophoresis combined with label-free protein quantification

Label-free methods streamline quantitative proteomics of tissues by alleviating the need for metabolic labeling of proteins with stable isotopes. Here we detail and implement solutions to common problems in label-free data processing geared toward tissue proteomics by one-dimensional gel electrophoresis followed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (geLC MS/MS). Our quantification pipeline showed high levels of performance in terms of duplicate reproducibility, linear dynamic range, and number of proteins identified and quantified. When applied to the liver of an adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) knockout mouse, we demonstrated an 8-fold increase in the number of statistically significant changing proteins compared to alternative approaches, including many more previously unidentified hydrophobic proteins. Better proteome coverage and quantification accuracy revealed molecular details of the perturbed energy metabolism.     

Isobaric protein and peptide quantification: perspectives and issues

An important challenge for proteomics is the ability to compare protein levels across biological samples. Since their introduction, isotopic and isobaric peptide labeling have played an important role in relative quantitative comparisons of proteomes. One important drawback of most of the isotopic-labeling techniques is an increase in sample complexity. This problem was successfully addressed with the construction of isobaric labeling strategies, such as isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ), tandem mass tagging, the cleavable isobaric affinity tag, dimethylated leucines and isobaric peptide termini labeling. Furthermore, numerous applications for multiplexing using iTRAQ and tandem mass tagging have been reported.     

Isobaric protein and peptide quantification: perspectives and issues

An important challenge for proteomics is the ability to compare protein levels across biological samples. Since their introduction, isotopic and isobaric peptide labeling have played an important role in relative quantitative comparisons of proteomes. One important drawback of most of the isotopic-labeling techniques is an increase in sample complexity. This problem was successfully addressed with the construction of isobaric labeling strategies, such as isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ), tandem mass tagging, the cleavable isobaric affinity tag, dimethylated leucines and isobaric peptide termini labeling. Furthermore, numerous applications for multiplexing using iTRAQ and tandem mass tagging have been reported.     

iTRAQ labeling is superior to mTRAQ for quantitative global proteomics and phosphoproteomics

Labeling of primary amines on peptides with reagents containing stable isotopes is a commonly used technique in quantitative mass spectrometry. Isobaric labeling techniques such as iTRAQ™ or TMT™ allow for relative quantification of peptides based on ratios of reporter ions in the low m/z region of spectra produced by precursor ion fragmentation. In contrast, nonisobaric labeling with mTRAQ™ yields precursors with different masses that can be directly quantified in MS1 spectra. In this study, we compare iTRAQ- and mTRAQ-based quantification of peptides and phosphopeptides derived from EGF-stimulated HeLa cells. Both labels have identical chemical structures, therefore precursor ion- and fragment ion-based quantification can be directly compared. Our results indicate that iTRAQ labeling has an additive effect on precursor intensities, whereas mTRAQ labeling leads to more redundant MS2 scanning events caused by triggering on the same peptide with different mTRAQ labels. We found that iTRAQ labeling quantified nearly threefold more phosphopeptides (12,129 versus 4,448) and nearly twofold more proteins (2,699 versus 1,597) than mTRAQ labeling. Although most key proteins in the EGFR signaling network were quantified with both techniques, iTRAQ labeling allowed quantification of twice as many kinases. Accuracy of reporter ion quantification by iTRAQ is adversely affected by peptides that are cofragmented in the same precursor isolation window, dampening observed ratios toward unity. However, because of tighter overall iTRAQ ratio distributions, the percentage of statistically significantly regulated phosphopeptides and proteins detected by iTRAQ and mTRAQ was similar. We observed a linear correlation of logarithmic iTRAQ to mTRAQ ratios over two orders of magnitude, indicating a possibility to correct iTRAQ ratios by an average compression factor. Spike-in experiments using peptides of defined ratios in a background of nonregulated peptides show that iTRAQ quantification is less accurate but not as variable as mTRAQ quantification.Stable isotope labeling techniques have become very popular in recent years to perform quantitative mass spectrometry experiments with high precision and accuracy. In contrast to label-free approaches, multiplexed isotopically labeled samples can be simultaneously analyzed resulting in increased reproducibility and accuracy for quantification of peptides and proteins from different biological states. Isotopic labeling strategies can be grouped into two major categories: isobaric labels and nonisobaric labels. In the former category are iTRAQ¹ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (1)) and TMT (tandem mass tags (2)) mass tags. In the nonisobaric labeling category are methods such as mTRAQ (mass differential tags for relative and absolute quantification), stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC (3)), and reductive dimethylation (4). Isobaric labeling techniques allow relative quantification of peptides based on ratios of low m/z reporter ions produced by fragmentation of the precursor ion, whereas nonisobaric labeling yields precursors with different masses that can be directly quantified from MS1 intensity. iTRAQ and mTRAQ reagents provide a great opportunity to directly compare capabilities of reporter and precursor ion quantification since both labels have identical chemical structures and differ only in their composition and number of ¹³C, ¹⁵N, and ¹⁸O atoms. In fact, iTRAQ-117 and mTRAQ-Δ4 are identical mass tags with a total mass of 145 Da (Fig. 1A). To achieve 4-plex quantification capabilities for iTRAQ labels, the composition of stable isotopes is arranged in a way to obtain the reporter ion/balancing group pairs 114/31, 115/30, 116/29, and 117/28 (1). Three nonisobaric mTRAQ labels were generated by adding or removing four neutrons to the mTRAQ-Δ4 label resulting in mTRAQ-Δ8 and mTRAQ-Δ0, respectively. Both iTRAQ and mTRAQ reagents are available as N-hydroxy-succinimide esters to facilitate primary amine labeling of peptides.Open in a separate windowFig. 1.A, Labeling strategy for comparative evaluation of iTRAQ and mTRAQ tags. Peptides were labeled with the indicated iTRAQ and mTRAQ reagents for combined phosphoproteome and proteome analysis. B, Selection of optimal instrument methods for analysis of iTRAQ- and mTRAQ-labeled peptides. Unfractionated proteome samples (1 ug) and phosphoproteome samples (enriched from 250 μg peptides) were analyzed for iTRAQ samples with a CID/HCD-Top8 method, whereas for mTRAQ we compared CID-Top16 acquisition to HCD-Top8. Note that duty cycle times were for all instrument methods ∼3.1 s.One potential advantage of an iTRAQ labeling strategy is its additive effect on precursor intensities when samples are multiplexed, resulting in increased sensitivity. However, iTRAQ ratios have been demonstrated to be prone to compression. This occurs when other nonregulated background peptides are co-isolated and cofragmented in the same isolation window of the peptide of interest and contribute fractional intensity to the reporter ions in MS2-scans (5–7). Because most peptides in an experiment are present at 1:1:1:1 ratios between multiplexed samples, all ratios in the experiment tend to be dampened toward unity when cofragmentation occurs. This inaccuracy led to the development of mTRAQ labels to facilitate accurate precursor-based quantification of proteins initially identified in iTRAQ discovery experiments with targeted assays, such as multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) (8). Although iTRAQ has been widely used in discovery-based proteomics studies, mTRAQ has only appeared in a small number of studies thus far (8).In this study we investigated the advantages and disadvantages of iTRAQ and mTRAQ labeling for proteome-wide analysis of protein phosphorylation and expression changes. We selected epidermal growth factor (EGF)-stimulated HeLa cells as a model system for our comparative evaluation of iTRAQ and mTRAQ labeling, as both changes in the phosphoproteome (9) as well as the proteome (10) are well described for EGF stimulation. We show that iTRAQ labeling yields superior results to mTRAQ in terms of numbers of quantified phosphopeptides, proteins and regulated components. By means of spike-in experiments with GluC generated peptides of known ratios we find that iTRAQ quantification is more precise but less accurate than mTRAQ due to ratio compression. We identify a linear relationship of observed versus expected logarithmic GluC generated peptide ratios as well as for logarithmic iTRAQ and mTRAQ ratios of the phosphoproteome and proteome analysis. This indicates a uniform degree of ratio compression over two orders of magnitude throughout iTRAQ data sets and explains why iTRAQ ratio compression does not compromise the ability to detect regulated elements in these experiments.     

Ultra-high intra-spectrum mass accuracy enables unambiguous identification of fragment reporter ions in isobaric multiplexed quantitative proteomics

Isobaric tagging using reagents such as tandem mass tags (TMT) and isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ) have become popular tools for mass spectrometry based quantitative proteomics. Because the peptide quantification information is collected in tandem mass spectra, the accuracy and precision of this method largely depend on the resolution with which precursor ions can be selected for the fragmentation and the specificity of the generated reporter ion. The latter can constitute an issue if near isobaric ion signals are present in such spectra because they may distort quantification results. We propose a simple remedy for this problem by identifying reporter ions via the accurate mass differences within a single tandem mass spectrum instead of applying fixed mass error tolerances for all tandem mass spectra. Our results show that this leads to unambiguous reporter ion identification and complete removal of interfering signals. This mode of data processing is easily implemented in software and offers advantages for protein quantification based on few peptides.     

Quantitative Proteomics Using Isobaric Labeling: A Practical Guide

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.     

Comparative study of three proteomic quantitative methods, DIGE, cICAT, and iTRAQ, using 2D gel- or LC-MALDI TOF/TOF

A comparative study on the three quantitative methods frequently used in proteomics, 2D DIGE (difference gel electrophoresis), cICAT (cleavable isotope-coded affinity tags) and iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification), was carried out. DIGE and cICAT are familiar techniques used in gel- and LC-based quantitative proteomics, respectively. iTRAQ is a new LC-based technique which is gradually gaining in popularity. A systematic comparison among these quantitative methods has not been reported. In this study, we conducted well-designed comparisons using a six-protein mixture, a reconstituted protein mixture (BSA spiked into human plasma devoid of six abundant proteins), and complex HCT-116 cell lysates as the samples. All three techniques yielded quantitative results with reasonable accuracy when the six-protein or the reconstituted protein mixture was used. In DIGE, accurate quantification was sometimes compromised due to comigration or partial comigration of proteins. The iTRAQ method is more susceptible to errors in precursor ion isolation, which could be manifested with increasing sample complexity. The quantification sensitivity of each method was estimated by the number of peptides detected for each protein. In this regard, the global-tagging iTRAQ technique was more sensitive than the cysteine-specific cICAT method, which in turn was as sensitive as, if not more sensitive than, the DIGE technique. Protein profiling on HCT-116 and HCT-116 p53 -/- cell lysates displayed limited overlapping among proteins identified by the three methods, suggesting the complementary nature of these 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.     

Triplex protein quantification based on stable isotope labeling by peptide dimethylation applied to cell and tissue lysates

Stable isotope labeling is at present one of the most powerful methods in quantitative proteomics. Stable isotope labeling has been performed at both the protein as well as the peptide level using either metabolic or chemical labeling. Here, we present a straightforward and cost-effective triplex quantification method that is based on stable isotope dimethyl labeling at the peptide level. Herein, all proteolytic peptides are chemically labeled at their alpha- and epsilon-amino groups. We use three different isotopomers of formaldehyde to enable the parallel analysis of three different samples. These labels provide a minimum of 4 Da mass difference between peaks in the generated peptide triplets. The method was evaluated based on the quantitative analysis of a cell lysate, using a typical "shotgun" proteomics experiment. While peptide complexity was increased by introducing three labels, still more than 1300 proteins could be identified using 60 microg of starting material, whereby more than 600 proteins could be quantified using at least four peptides per protein. The triplex labeling was further utilized to distinguish specific from aspecific cAMP binding proteins in a chemical proteomics experiment using immobilized cAMP. Thereby, differences in abundance ratio of more than two orders of magnitude could be quantified.     

植物蛋白质组学研究若干重要进展

植物蛋白质组学近年来正从定性向精确定量蛋白质组学的方向发展。国际上近两年发表的约160篇研究论文报道了利用不断改进的双向电泳结合生物质谱技术、多维蛋白质鉴定技术, 以及包括双向荧光差异凝胶电泳、15N体内代谢标记、同位素标记的亲和标签、同位素标记相对和绝对定量等在内的第2代蛋白质组学技术, 对植物组织(器官)与细胞器、植物发育过程和植物响应环境胁迫的蛋白质组特征, 以及植物蛋白质翻译后修饰和蛋白质相互作用等方面的研究成果。该文对上述报道进行总结, 综述了2007年以来植物蛋白质组学若干重要问题研究的新进展。     

定量蛋白质组学中的同位素标记技术

定量蛋白质组学的目的是对复杂的混合体系中所有的蛋白质进行鉴定,并对蛋白质的量及量的变化进行准确的测定,是当前系统生物科学研究的重要内容。近年来,由于质谱技术和生物信息学的进步,定量蛋白质组学在分析蛋白质组或亚蛋白质组方面已取得了令人瞩目的成就,但其最显著的成就应该归功于稳定同位素标记技术的应用。该技术使用针对某一类蛋白具有特异性的化学探针来标记目的蛋白质或肽段,同时化学探针要求含有用以精确定量的稳定同位素信号。在此基础上,实现了对表达的蛋白质差异和翻译后修饰的蛋白质差异进行精确定量分析。综述了在定量蛋白质组学中使用的各种同位素标记技术及其应用。