Comparative study of three proteomic quantitative methods, DIGE, cICAT, and iTRAQ, using 2D gel- or LC-MALDI TOF/TOF

被引:470
作者
Wu, WW
Wang, GH
Baek, SJ
Shen, RF
机构
[1] NIH, NHLBI, Proteom Core Facil, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] Univ Tennessee, Coll Vet Med, Dept Pathobiol, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
关键词
protein quantification; DIGE; cICAT; iTRAQ; 2D gel; LC-MALDI TOF/TOF;
D O I
10.1021/pr050405o
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
A comparative study on the three quantitative methods frequently used in proteomics, 2D DIGE (difference gel electrophoresis), cICAT (cleavable isotope-coded affinity tags) and iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification), was carried out. DIGE and clCAT are familiar techniques used in gel- and LC-based quantitative proteomics, respectively. iTRAQ is a new LC-based technique which is gradually gaining in popularity. A systematic comparison among these quantitative methods has not been reported. In this study, we conducted well-designed comparisons using a six-protein mixture, a reconstituted protein mixture (BSA spiked into human plasma devoid of six abundant proteins), and complex HCT-116 cell lysates as the samples. All three techniques yielded quantitative results with reasonable accuracy when the six-protein or the reconstituted protein mixture was used. In DIGE, accurate quantification was sometimes compromised due to comigration or partial comigration of proteins. The iTRAQ method is more susceptible to errors in precursor ion isolation, which could be manifested with increasing sample complexity. The quantification sensitivity of each method was estimated by the number of peptides detected for each protein. In this regard, the global-tagging iTRAQ technique was more sensitive than the cysteine-specific cICAT method, which in turn was as sensitive as, if nol more sensitive than, the DIGE technique. Protein profiling on HCT-11 16 and HCT-116 p53 -/- cell lysales displayed limited overlapping among proteins identified by the three methods, suggesting the complementary nature of these methods.
引用
收藏
页码:651 / 658
页数:8
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
Beardsley RL, 2000, RAPID COMMUN MASS SP, V14, P2147, DOI 10.1002/1097-0231(20001215)14:23<2147::AID-RCM145>3.0.CO
[2]  
2-M
[3]  
Brancia FL, 2000, RAPID COMMUN MASS SP, V14, P2070, DOI 10.1002/1097-0231(20001115)14:21<2070::AID-RCM133>3.0.CO
[4]  
2-G
[5]  
CAMPBELL JM, 2004, 52 ASMS C
[6]   Global protein identification and quantification technology using two-dimensional liquid chromatography nanospray mass spectrometry [J].
Chelius, D ;
Zhang, T ;
Wang, GH ;
Shen, RF .
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, 2003, 75 (23) :6658-6665
[7]   A comparison of the consistency of proteome quantitation using two-dimensional electrophoresis and shotgun isobaric tagging in Escherichia coli cells [J].
Choe, LH ;
Aggarwal, K ;
Franck, Z ;
Lee, KH .
ELECTROPHORESIS, 2005, 26 (12) :2437-2449
[8]   Search for cancer markers from endometrial tissues using differentially labeled tags iTRAQ and clCAT with multidimensional liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry [J].
DeSouza, L ;
Diehl, G ;
Rodrigues, MJ ;
Guo, JZ ;
Romaschin, AD ;
Colgan, TJ ;
Siu, KWM .
JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH, 2005, 4 (02) :377-386
[9]  
Fountoulakis M, 2002, ELECTROPHORESIS, V23, P311, DOI 10.1002/1522-2683(200202)23:2<311::AID-ELPS311>3.0.CO
[10]  
2-0