Abstract

Liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry of peptides using stable isotope dilution (SID) provides a powerful tool for targeted protein quantitation. However, the high cost of labeled peptide standards for SID poses an obstacle to multiple reaction monitoring studies. We compared SID to a labeled reference peptide (LRP) method, which uses a single labeled peptide as a reference standard for all measured peptides, and a label-free (LF) approach, in which quantitation is based on analysis of un-normalized peak areas for detected MRM transitions. We analyzed peptides from the Escherichia coli proteins alkaline phosphatase and β-galactosidase spiked into lysates from human colon adenocarcinoma RKO cells. We also analyzed liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry data from a recently published interlaboratory study by the National Cancer Institute Clinical Proteomic Technology Assessment for Cancer network (Addona et al. (2009) Nat. Biotechnol. 27: 633-641), in which unlabeled and isotopically labeled synthetic peptides or their corresponding proteins were spiked into human plasma. SID displayed the highest correlation coefficients and lowest coefficient of variation in regression analyses of both peptide and protein spike studies. In protein spike experiments, median coefficient of variation values were about 10% for SID and 20-30% for LRP and LF methods. Power calculations indicated that differences in measurement error between the methods have much less impact on measured protein expression differences than biological variation. All three methods detected significant (p < 0.05) differential expression of three endogenous proteins in a test set of 10 pairs of human lung tumor and control tissues. Further, the LRP and LF methods both detected significant differences (p < 0.05) in levels of seven biomarker candidates between tumors and controls in the same set of lung tissue samples. The data indicate that the LRP and LF methods provide cost-effective alternatives to SID for many quantitative liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry applications.

Highlights

  • The data establish the performance of the labeled reference peptide (LRP) and LF methods and provide a basis to select between all three methods for appropriate applications in quantitative proteomics

  • Routine assessment of instrument and chromatographic performance was done with a quality control (QC) standard consisting of three synthetic peptides (TPepH (Ac-AVAGHAGAR), and TPepW (Ac-AVAGWAGAR), and the annexin peptide VLDLELK), which was prepared at a concentration of 10 fmol/␮l in 0.1% formic acid

  • The LF method is analogous to MS1 profiling approaches to peptide quantitation [32,33,34,35,36,37], except that we have extended the concept from analysis of the MS1 signal to analysis of MRM transitions

Read more

Summary

Technological Innovation and Resources

Methods for Peptide and Protein Quantitation by Liquid Chromatography-Multiple Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry*□S. Liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry of peptides using stable isotope dilution (SID) provides a powerful tool for targeted protein quantitation. The data indicate that the LRP and LF methods provide cost-effective alternatives to SID for many quantitative liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry applications. Despite the power of the method, the use of SID is limited practically by the cost of labeled standards, which are expensive (ϳ$1000 per milligram for labeled peptides of high purity) This issue is important in considering LC-MRM-MS to evaluate candidate biomarkers for disease. The second is a label-free (LF) method that employs no standard and where quantitation is based only on the peak areas extracted from LC-MRM-MS product ion chromatograms We compared these three approaches with datasets from analyses of defined peptide and protein mixtures on triple quadrupole LC-MS instruments. The data establish the performance of the LRP and LF methods and provide a basis to select between all three methods for appropriate applications in quantitative proteomics

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
MYO PSA
TABLE III Lung cancer protein biomarker candidates
DISCUSSION
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