Comparative Study of Three Proteomic Quantitative Methods, DIGE, cICAT, and iTRAQ, Using 2D Gel- or LC−MALDI TOF/TOF

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 cICAT are familiar techniques use...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of proteome research 2006-03, Vol.5 (3), p.651-658
Hauptverfasser: Wu, Wells W, Wang, Guanghui, Baek, Seung Joon, Shen, Rong-Fong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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 cICAT 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 not more sensitive than, the DIGE technique. Protein profiling on HCT-116 and HCT-116 p53 −/− cell lysates displayed limited overlapping among proteins identified by the three methods, suggesting the complementary nature of these methods. Keywords: protein quantification • DIGE • cICAT • iTRAQ • 2D gel • LC-MALDI TOF/TOF
ISSN:1535-3893
1535-3907
DOI:10.1021/pr050405o