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.