工作流程
定量蛋白质组学
再现性
等压标记
蛋白质组
数据集
计算机科学
蛋白质组学
样品(材料)
数据挖掘
色谱法
化学
计算生物学
生物信息学
数据库
人工智能
生物
基因
生物化学
作者
Jan Muntel,Joanna Kirkpatrick,Roland Bruderer,Ting Huang,Olga Vitek,Alessandro Ori,Lukas Reiter
标识
DOI:10.1021/acs.jproteome.8b00898
摘要
Label-free quantification (LFQ) and isobaric labeling quantification (ILQ) are among the most popular protein quantification workflows in discovery proteomics. Here, we compared the TMT SPS/MS3 10-plex workflow to a label free single shot data-independent acquisition (DIA) workflow on a controlled sample set. The sample set consisted of ten samples derived from 10 biological replicates of mouse cerebelli spiked with the UPS2 protein standard in five different concentrations. For a fair comparison, we matched the instrument time for the two workflows. The LC–MS data were acquired at two facilities to assess interlaboratory reproducibility. Both methods resulted in a high proteome coverage (>5000 proteins) with low missing values on protein level (<2%). The TMT workflow led to 15–20% more identified proteins and a slightly better quantitative precision, whereas the quantitative accuracy was better for the DIA method. The quantitative performance was benchmarked by the number of true positives (UPS2 proteins) within the top 100 candidates. TMT and DIA showed a similar performance. The quantitative performance of the DIA data stayed in a similar range when searching the spectra against a fasta database directly, instead of using a project-specific library. Our experiments also demonstrated that both workflows are readily transferrable between facilities.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI