Abstract

BackgroundComparative proteomics in bacteria are often hampered by the differential nature of dataset quality and/or inherent biological deviations. Although common practice compensates by reproducing and normalizing datasets from a single sample, the degree of certainty is limited in comparison of multiple dataset. To surmount these limitations, we introduce a two-step assessment criterion using: (1) the relative number of total spectra (R TS) to determine if two LC-MS/MS datasets are comparable and (2) nine glycolytic enzymes as internal standards for a more accurate calculation of relative amount of proteins. Lactococcus lactis HR279 and JHK24 strains expressing high or low levels (respectively) of green fluorescent protein (GFP) were used for the model system. GFP abundance was determined by spectral counting and direct fluorescence measurements. Statistical analysis determined relative GFP quantity obtained from our approach matched values obtained from fluorescence measurements.Results L. lactis HR279 and JHK24 demonstrates two datasets with an R TS value less than 1.4 accurately reflects relative differences in GFP levels between high and low expression strains. Without prior consideration of R TS and the use of internal standards, the relative increase in GFP calculated by spectral counting method was 3.92 ± 1.14 fold, which is not correlated with the value determined by the direct fluorescence measurement (2.86 ± 0.42 fold) with the p = 0.024. In contrast, 2.88 ± 0.92 fold was obtained by our approach showing a statistically insignificant difference (p = 0.95).ConclusionsOur two-step assessment demonstrates a useful approach to: (1) validate the comparability of two mass spectrometric datasets and (2) accurately calculate the relative amount of proteins between proteomic datasets.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12859-015-0561-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Comparative proteomics in bacteria are often hampered by the differential nature of dataset quality and/or inherent biological deviations

  • Sample deviation is often fundamental and originates from different biological conditions and cannot be assessed by the extant reproducibility of any one sample or dataset normalization. To approach such problems in comparative proteomics, we hypothesized that proteins expressed consistently across various cellular conditions can be used as internal standards for quantification as well as a dataset comparability indicator

  • Strategy for the comparability assessment using internal standards We define ‘comparability’ as the determination of whether two datasets have similar quality in order to correctly reflect proteomic changes occurring between two experimental conditions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Comparative proteomics in bacteria are often hampered by the differential nature of dataset quality and/or inherent biological deviations. Common practice compensates by reproducing and normalizing datasets from a single sample, the degree of certainty is limited in comparison of multiple dataset. To surmount these limitations, we introduce a two-step assessment criterion using: (1) the relative number of total spectra (RTS) to determine if two LC-MS/MS datasets are comparable and (2) nine glycolytic enzymes as internal standards for a more accurate calculation of relative amount of proteins. Individual datasets from LC-MS/MS can be obtained with careful sample preparation and To approach such problems in comparative proteomics, we hypothesized that proteins expressed consistently across various cellular conditions can be used as internal standards for quantification as well as a dataset comparability indicator. This study selected constitutively expressed proteins from Lactococcus lactis’ glycolytic pathway as internal standards for comparative proteomic analyses [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call