1 / 32

PRG2007 Research Study Advanced Quantitative Proteomics

PRG2007 Research Study Advanced Quantitative Proteomics. http://www.abrf.org/prg. PRG Members. Arnold Falick (Chair) – UC Berkeley HHMI William Lane (EB Liason) – Harvard University Kathryn Lilley (ad hoc) – University of Cambridge Michael MacCoss – University of Washington

ron
Download Presentation

PRG2007 Research Study Advanced Quantitative Proteomics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRG2007 Research StudyAdvanced Quantitative Proteomics http://www.abrf.org/prg ABRF PRG 2007

  2. PRG Members • Arnold Falick (Chair) – UC Berkeley HHMI • William Lane (EB Liason) – Harvard University • Kathryn Lilley (ad hoc) –University of Cambridge • Michael MacCoss – University of Washington • Brett Phinney – UC Davis Genome Center • Nicholas Sherman – University of Virginia • Susan Weintraub – Univ. Texas Heath Science Center • Ewa Witkowska – UC San Francisco • Nathan Yates – Merck Research Laboratories ABRF PRG 2007

  3. Past Research Studies • PRG2002: Identification of Proteins in a Simple Mixture • Task: Identify components of a 5 protein mixture • PRG2003: Phosphorylation Site Determination • Task: Identify 2 phosphopeptides and sites of phosphorylation • PRG2004: Differentiation of Protein Isoforms • Task: Discrimination of 3 closely related proteins • PRG2005: Sequencing Unknown Peptides • Task: De novo sequence analysis of 5 peptide mixture • PRG2006: Quantification of Proteins from a Simple Mixture • Task: Relative Abundance of 8 Proteins Between 2 Different Samples ABRF PRG 2007

  4. PRG2007 Study Objectives • What methods are used in the community for assessing differences between complex mixtures? • How well established are quantitative methodologies in the community? • What is the accuracy of the quantitative data acquired in core facilities? • We wanted to build upon last years study by providing samples that were more complicated, yet more realistic. ABRF PRG 2007

  5. Identical Spikes at Different Levels and Ratios PRG2007 Sample Design Sample A Sample B Sample C 100 µg E. coli lysate 12 Total Protein Spikes - 10 Non-E. coli proteins - 2 E. coli proteins 100 µg E. coli lysate 12 Total Protein Spikes - 10 Non-E. coli proteins - 2 E. coli proteins 100 µg E. coli lysate 12 Total Protein Spikes - 10 Non-E. coli proteins - 2 E. coli proteins ABRF PRG 2007

  6. PRG2007 Study Tasks • Identify the proteins that had altered components between the samples • Determine the relative amounts of the proteins between samples ABRF PRG 2007

  7. Proteins in PRG2007 Sample * * *E. coli Proteins ABRF PRG 2007

  8. Proteins in PRG2007 Sample ABRF PRG 2007

  9. Protein Sequence Database >gi|16131131|ref|NP_417708.1| putative membrane protein [Escherichia coli K12] MKTLIRKFSRTAITVVLVILAFIAIFNAWVYYTESPWTRDARFSADVVAIAPDVSGLITQVNVHDNQLVK KGQILFTIDQPRYQKALEEAQADVAYYQVLAQEKRQEAGRRNRLGVQAMSREEIDQANNVLQTVLHQLAK AQATRDLAKLDLERTVIRAPADGWVTNLNVYTGEFITRGSTAVALVKQNSFYVLAYMEETKLEGVRPGYR AEITPLGSNKVLKGTVDSVAAGVTNASSTRDDKGMATIDSNLEWVRLAQRVPVRIRLDNQQENIWPAGTT ATVVVTGKQDRDESQDSFFRKMAHRLREFG Was converted to: >PRG_seq_5 ABRF_PRG2007_Protein_5MKTLIRKFSRTAITVVLVILAFIAIFNAWVYYTESPWTRDARFSADVVAIAPDVSGLITQVNVHDNQLVK KGQILFTIDQPRYQKALEEAQADVAYYQVLAQEKRQEAGRRNRLGVQAMSREEIDQANNVLQTVLHQLAK AQATRDLAKLDLERTVIRAPADGWVTNLNVYTGEFITRGSTAVALVKQNSFYVLAYMEETKLEGVRPGYR AEITPLGSNKVLKGTVDSVAAGVTNASSTRDDKGMATIDSNLEWVRLAQRVPVRIRLDNQQENIWPAGTT ATVVVTGKQDRDESQDSFFRKMAHRLREFG The file contains: 1) 4,346 protein sequences 2) common contaminants (e.g. keratins, trypsin, etc...) 3) an equal number of decoy sequences ABRF PRG 2007

  10. Samples Analyzed by 2D DIGE Sample A Sample B Sample C A pooled standard of all three samples was made and labelled with Cy5 (red). The samples were then labelled individually with Cy3 (green) and each gel was run with a single sample versus pooled standard. ABRF PRG 2007

  11. Samples by µLC-MS (1 µg on column) Base Peak Chromatograms Sample A Sample B ABRF PRG 2007

  12. Demographics of the Participants ABRF PRG 2007

  13. Demographics of the Participants Quantitative DataReturned = 35 Total Participants = 43 87 Labs Requested Samples: 49% Return Rate ABRF PRG 2007

  14. PRG2007 Abbreviations DIGE Differential In-Gel Electrophoresis ICPL Isotope Coded Protein Label iTRAQ isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute Quantitation ICAT Isotope Coded Affinity Tag 18O Stable Oxygen Isotope Label SRM Selected Reaction Monitoring ABRF PRG 2007

  15. 35 Participants Returned Methods Used ABRF PRG 2007

  16. Techniques Applied ABRF PRG 2007

  17. Results: True Positives vs False Positives 17 ABRF PRG 2007 ABRF PRG 2007

  18. Results: True Positives vs False Positives 18 ABRF PRG 2007 ABRF PRG 2007

  19. Quantitative Accuracy: Ubiquitin 2D Gels Label Free Stable Isotope Labeling A = 5 pmol B = 23 pmol Color Indicates Method Used iTRAQ ICPL ICAT 18O Labeling Label Free Label Free + targeted SRM 2D-Gels (nonDIGE) 2D-DIGE 8 Anticipated Mole Ratio 4.6 6 B/A Ratio 4 2 0 ABRF PRG 2007

  20. Quantitative Accuracy: Myoglobin 2D Gels Label Free Stable Isotope Labeling A = 0.5 pmol B = 5 pmol Color Indicates Method Used iTRAQ ICPL ICAT 18O Labeling Label Free Label Free + targeted SRM 2D-Gels (nonDIGE) 2D-DIGE 16 14 12 Anticipated Mole Ratio 10 B/A Ratio 10 8 6 4 2 ABRF PRG 2007 0

  21. Quantitative Accuracy: Serum Albumin 2D Gels Label Free Stable Isotope Labeling A = 5 pmol B = 3.3 pmol 3.5 Color Indicates Method Used iTRAQ ICPL ICAT 18O Labeling Label Free Label Free + targeted SRM 2D-Gels (nonDIGE) 2D-DIGE 3 2.5 Anticipated Mole Ratio 0.67 B/A Ratio 2 1.5 1 0.5 ABRF PRG 2007

  22. Quantitative Accuracy: Carbonic Anhydrase I 2D Gels Label Free Stable Isotope Labeling A = 2.5 pmol B = 1.14 pmol Color Indicates Method Used iTRAQ ICPL ICAT 18O Labeling Label Free Label Free + targeted SRM 2D-Gels (nonDIGE) 2D-DIGE 1.8 1.6 1.4 Anticipated Mole Ratio 0.45 1.2 B/A Ratio 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 ABRF PRG 2007

  23. Quantitative Accuracy: Glucose Oxidase 2D Gels Label Free Stable Isotope Labeling A = 0.5 pmol B = 0.33 pmol Color Indicates Method Used iTRAQ ICPL ICAT 18O Labeling Label Free Label Free + targeted SRM 2D-Gels (nonDIGE) 2D-DIGE 1 0.8 Anticipated Mole Ratio 0.67 0.6 B/A Ratio 0.4 0.2 0 ABRF PRG 2007

  24. Quantitative Accuracy: Hexokinase 2D Gels Label Free Stable Isotope Labeling A = 0.5 pmol B = 0.16 pmol Color Indicates Method Used iTRAQ ICPL ICAT 18O Labeling Label Free Label Free + targeted SRM 2D-Gels (nonDIGE) 2D-DIGE 2.5 2 Anticipated Mole Ratio 0.31 B/A Ratio 1.5 1 0.5 0 ABRF PRG 2007

  25. Quantitative Accuracy: Tryptophanase* 2D Gels Label Free Stable Isotope Labeling A = 5 pmol B = 1.56 pmol Color Indicates Method Used iTRAQ ICPL ICAT 18O Labeling Label Free Label Free + targeted SRM 2D-Gels (nonDIGE) 2D-DIGE 10 8 6 Anticipated Mole Ratio from 1 to 0.31 4 B/A Ratio 2 0 ABRF PRG 2007

  26. Biggest Challenges Reported – Summary • Complexity of the proteolytic digest. Long calculation times at several analytical steps • To find the resources: spent more than $1000 on [the study] and had one technician busy for more than a week and a scientist for 2-3 days • Finding the time • No automation software available - too much hands-on work. • Sample solubilization • The ABRF fasta database: several search algorithms had problems. • Number of replicates possible, making it difficult to determine a reasonable error rate, making it difficult to determine whether a protein is actually differentially expressed • The MS identification of low abundance differential spots ABRF PRG 2007

  27. Selected Comments • The study was very good for researchers new to the proteomics field. • This was an excellent learning experience. This study highlighted my facility's capabilities (peptide fractionation and MS) and weaknesses (chemical labeling of proteins and peptides and quant. analysis). • This years study was a much more realistic sample that imitates real proteomic samples (without the dynamic range issue from serum/plasma samples). • Very interesting study because it addresses a 'real world' issue which is the relative quantitation of a small number of proteins in a very complex mixture. • We didn't have enough time... • The protein amount of these samples is small and so it is difficult to have confident results. ABRF PRG 2007

  28. Selected Comments -- Continued • More sample, more time. We would have run these in at least triplicate as per our routine operation if we had had more sample and time. • Make sure the solubilisation is as good as possible: I did not obtain any useful data from the samples, probably because I was not able to solubilise the sample completely. • not fun!!! • Overall peak intensity of the samples was not as high as the expected intensity for the amount of protein specified (100 µg) in the study. • Liked it, because we could evaluate ourselves. For regular samples (500 µg on gel) I always am able to confidently assign most proteins. That was not so with the concentrations here. ABRF PRG 2007

  29. Would you do this sort of study again? N = 38 N = 0 N = 0 N = 4 • Other Responses: • Yes, learned a lot, but need to watch resources • Yes, but time issue • Maybe • Yes, but it was not fun ABRF PRG 2007

  30. Conclusions • Quantitative proteomics experiments are complex and require many factors for success • A handful of participants reported excellent results indicating that quantitative results are achievable • Participants using similar techniques did not obtain similar performance and suggests that expertise is a key factor • Head to head comparisons of different approaches is not possible because of the high dependence on expertise • Interest in this area is high and many labs appear to be developing these capabilities ABRF PRG 2007

  31. Acknowledgements • Kevin Hakala (UTHSCSA) • Michelle Salemi (UC Davis) • Rich Eigenheer (UC Davis) • Matthew Russell (University of Cambridge) • Ekaterina Deyanova (Merck Research Laboratories) ABRF PRG 2007

  32. Acknowledgements A huge thanks to all the labs that participated in this year’s study! ABRF PRG 2007

More Related