Optimal analytical strategies for sensitive and quantitative phosphoproteomics using TMT‐based multiplexing
In large‐scale quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)‐based phosphoproteomics, isobaric labeling with tandem mass tags (TMTs) coupled with offline high‐pH reversed‐phase peptide chromatographic fractionation maximizes depth of coverage. To investigate to what extent limited sample amounts affect sensit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Proteomics (Weinheim) 2022-10, Vol.22 (19-20), p.e2100245-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 19-20 |
container_start_page | e2100245 |
container_title | Proteomics (Weinheim) |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Koenig, Claire Martinez‐Val, Ana Franciosa, Giulia Olsen, Jesper V. |
description | In large‐scale quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)‐based phosphoproteomics, isobaric labeling with tandem mass tags (TMTs) coupled with offline high‐pH reversed‐phase peptide chromatographic fractionation maximizes depth of coverage. To investigate to what extent limited sample amounts affect sensitivity and dynamic range of the analysis due to sample losses, we benchmarked TMT‐based fractionation strategies against single‐shot label‐free quantification with spectral library‐free data independent acquisition (LFQ‐DIA), for different peptide input per sample. To systematically examine how peptide input amounts influence TMT‐fractionation approaches in a phosphoproteomics workflow, we compared two different high‐pH reversed‐phase fractionation strategies, microflow (MF) and stage‐tip fractionation (STF), while scaling the peptide input amount down from 12.5 to 1 μg per sample. Our results indicate that, for input amounts higher than 5 μg per sample, TMT labeling, followed by microflow fractionation (MF) and phospho‐enrichment, achieves the deepest phosphoproteome coverage, even compared to single shot direct‐DIA analysis. Conversely, STF of enriched phosphopeptides (STF) is optimal for lower amounts, below 5 μg/peptide per sample. As a result, we provide a decision tree to help phosphoproteomics users to choose the best workflow as a function of sample amount. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/pmic.202100245 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2678428443</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2678428443</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3867-64ed77a61ab8ec89144dd5c0dee9ff4059969278e7a368d71c07e5465aa510c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkLtOwzAUQCMEEqWwMkdiYUnx286IKh6VWpWhzJHr3BRXeTV2gG58At_Il-BS1IGFwfK99rkPnSi6xGiEESI3bWXNiCCySxg_igZYYJ6kSuDjQ8zpaXTm3BohLFUqB1E1b72tdBnrWpdbb00Ine-0h5UFFxdNFzuonfX2FQKTx5te1956_fPQvjQunLZrPDRhvIt7Z-tVvJgtvj4-l9pBHld96W1bwnv4OI9OCl06uPi9h9Hz_d1i_JhM5w-T8e00MVQJmQgGuZRaYL1UYFSKGctzblAOkBYFQzxNRUqkAqmpULnEBkngTHCtOUaG02F0ve8bNtv04HxWWWegLHUNTe8yIqRiRDFGA3r1B103fRdkBEoSQQkhggVqtKdM1zjXQZG1XdDWbTOMsp3wbGc_O9gPBXxf8GZL2P5DZ0-zyRhTTiX9Bom5i2A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2726322264</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Optimal analytical strategies for sensitive and quantitative phosphoproteomics using TMT‐based multiplexing</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Koenig, Claire ; Martinez‐Val, Ana ; Franciosa, Giulia ; Olsen, Jesper V.</creator><creatorcontrib>Koenig, Claire ; Martinez‐Val, Ana ; Franciosa, Giulia ; Olsen, Jesper V.</creatorcontrib><description>In large‐scale quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)‐based phosphoproteomics, isobaric labeling with tandem mass tags (TMTs) coupled with offline high‐pH reversed‐phase peptide chromatographic fractionation maximizes depth of coverage. To investigate to what extent limited sample amounts affect sensitivity and dynamic range of the analysis due to sample losses, we benchmarked TMT‐based fractionation strategies against single‐shot label‐free quantification with spectral library‐free data independent acquisition (LFQ‐DIA), for different peptide input per sample. To systematically examine how peptide input amounts influence TMT‐fractionation approaches in a phosphoproteomics workflow, we compared two different high‐pH reversed‐phase fractionation strategies, microflow (MF) and stage‐tip fractionation (STF), while scaling the peptide input amount down from 12.5 to 1 μg per sample. Our results indicate that, for input amounts higher than 5 μg per sample, TMT labeling, followed by microflow fractionation (MF) and phospho‐enrichment, achieves the deepest phosphoproteome coverage, even compared to single shot direct‐DIA analysis. Conversely, STF of enriched phosphopeptides (STF) is optimal for lower amounts, below 5 μg/peptide per sample. As a result, we provide a decision tree to help phosphoproteomics users to choose the best workflow as a function of sample amount.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1615-9853</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1615-9861</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/pmic.202100245</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Weinheim: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Decision trees ; Fractionation ; high‐pH fractionation ; isobaric labeling ; Labeling ; Mass spectrometry ; Mass spectroscopy ; Multiplexing ; Peptides ; pH effects ; phosphoproteomics ; scale‐down ; tandem mass tags ; Workflow</subject><ispartof>Proteomics (Weinheim), 2022-10, Vol.22 (19-20), p.e2100245-n/a</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. Proteomics published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3867-64ed77a61ab8ec89144dd5c0dee9ff4059969278e7a368d71c07e5465aa510c53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3867-64ed77a61ab8ec89144dd5c0dee9ff4059969278e7a368d71c07e5465aa510c53</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8784-3822 ; 0000-0002-7327-2723 ; 0000-0001-5309-5558 ; 0000-0002-4747-4938</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fpmic.202100245$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fpmic.202100245$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Koenig, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez‐Val, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franciosa, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olsen, Jesper V.</creatorcontrib><title>Optimal analytical strategies for sensitive and quantitative phosphoproteomics using TMT‐based multiplexing</title><title>Proteomics (Weinheim)</title><description>In large‐scale quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)‐based phosphoproteomics, isobaric labeling with tandem mass tags (TMTs) coupled with offline high‐pH reversed‐phase peptide chromatographic fractionation maximizes depth of coverage. To investigate to what extent limited sample amounts affect sensitivity and dynamic range of the analysis due to sample losses, we benchmarked TMT‐based fractionation strategies against single‐shot label‐free quantification with spectral library‐free data independent acquisition (LFQ‐DIA), for different peptide input per sample. To systematically examine how peptide input amounts influence TMT‐fractionation approaches in a phosphoproteomics workflow, we compared two different high‐pH reversed‐phase fractionation strategies, microflow (MF) and stage‐tip fractionation (STF), while scaling the peptide input amount down from 12.5 to 1 μg per sample. Our results indicate that, for input amounts higher than 5 μg per sample, TMT labeling, followed by microflow fractionation (MF) and phospho‐enrichment, achieves the deepest phosphoproteome coverage, even compared to single shot direct‐DIA analysis. Conversely, STF of enriched phosphopeptides (STF) is optimal for lower amounts, below 5 μg/peptide per sample. As a result, we provide a decision tree to help phosphoproteomics users to choose the best workflow as a function of sample amount.</description><subject>Decision trees</subject><subject>Fractionation</subject><subject>high‐pH fractionation</subject><subject>isobaric labeling</subject><subject>Labeling</subject><subject>Mass spectrometry</subject><subject>Mass spectroscopy</subject><subject>Multiplexing</subject><subject>Peptides</subject><subject>pH effects</subject><subject>phosphoproteomics</subject><subject>scale‐down</subject><subject>tandem mass tags</subject><subject>Workflow</subject><issn>1615-9853</issn><issn>1615-9861</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkLtOwzAUQCMEEqWwMkdiYUnx286IKh6VWpWhzJHr3BRXeTV2gG58At_Il-BS1IGFwfK99rkPnSi6xGiEESI3bWXNiCCySxg_igZYYJ6kSuDjQ8zpaXTm3BohLFUqB1E1b72tdBnrWpdbb00Ine-0h5UFFxdNFzuonfX2FQKTx5te1956_fPQvjQunLZrPDRhvIt7Z-tVvJgtvj4-l9pBHld96W1bwnv4OI9OCl06uPi9h9Hz_d1i_JhM5w-T8e00MVQJmQgGuZRaYL1UYFSKGctzblAOkBYFQzxNRUqkAqmpULnEBkngTHCtOUaG02F0ve8bNtv04HxWWWegLHUNTe8yIqRiRDFGA3r1B103fRdkBEoSQQkhggVqtKdM1zjXQZG1XdDWbTOMsp3wbGc_O9gPBXxf8GZL2P5DZ0-zyRhTTiX9Bom5i2A</recordid><startdate>202210</startdate><enddate>202210</enddate><creator>Koenig, Claire</creator><creator>Martinez‐Val, Ana</creator><creator>Franciosa, Giulia</creator><creator>Olsen, Jesper V.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8784-3822</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7327-2723</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5309-5558</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4747-4938</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202210</creationdate><title>Optimal analytical strategies for sensitive and quantitative phosphoproteomics using TMT‐based multiplexing</title><author>Koenig, Claire ; Martinez‐Val, Ana ; Franciosa, Giulia ; Olsen, Jesper V.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3867-64ed77a61ab8ec89144dd5c0dee9ff4059969278e7a368d71c07e5465aa510c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Decision trees</topic><topic>Fractionation</topic><topic>high‐pH fractionation</topic><topic>isobaric labeling</topic><topic>Labeling</topic><topic>Mass spectrometry</topic><topic>Mass spectroscopy</topic><topic>Multiplexing</topic><topic>Peptides</topic><topic>pH effects</topic><topic>phosphoproteomics</topic><topic>scale‐down</topic><topic>tandem mass tags</topic><topic>Workflow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Koenig, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martinez‐Val, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franciosa, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olsen, Jesper V.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Proteomics (Weinheim)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Koenig, Claire</au><au>Martinez‐Val, Ana</au><au>Franciosa, Giulia</au><au>Olsen, Jesper V.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Optimal analytical strategies for sensitive and quantitative phosphoproteomics using TMT‐based multiplexing</atitle><jtitle>Proteomics (Weinheim)</jtitle><date>2022-10</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>19-20</issue><spage>e2100245</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e2100245-n/a</pages><issn>1615-9853</issn><eissn>1615-9861</eissn><abstract>In large‐scale quantitative mass spectrometry (MS)‐based phosphoproteomics, isobaric labeling with tandem mass tags (TMTs) coupled with offline high‐pH reversed‐phase peptide chromatographic fractionation maximizes depth of coverage. To investigate to what extent limited sample amounts affect sensitivity and dynamic range of the analysis due to sample losses, we benchmarked TMT‐based fractionation strategies against single‐shot label‐free quantification with spectral library‐free data independent acquisition (LFQ‐DIA), for different peptide input per sample. To systematically examine how peptide input amounts influence TMT‐fractionation approaches in a phosphoproteomics workflow, we compared two different high‐pH reversed‐phase fractionation strategies, microflow (MF) and stage‐tip fractionation (STF), while scaling the peptide input amount down from 12.5 to 1 μg per sample. Our results indicate that, for input amounts higher than 5 μg per sample, TMT labeling, followed by microflow fractionation (MF) and phospho‐enrichment, achieves the deepest phosphoproteome coverage, even compared to single shot direct‐DIA analysis. Conversely, STF of enriched phosphopeptides (STF) is optimal for lower amounts, below 5 μg/peptide per sample. As a result, we provide a decision tree to help phosphoproteomics users to choose the best workflow as a function of sample amount.</abstract><cop>Weinheim</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/pmic.202100245</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8784-3822</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7327-2723</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5309-5558</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4747-4938</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1615-9853 |
ispartof | Proteomics (Weinheim), 2022-10, Vol.22 (19-20), p.e2100245-n/a |
issn | 1615-9853 1615-9861 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2678428443 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Decision trees Fractionation high‐pH fractionation isobaric labeling Labeling Mass spectrometry Mass spectroscopy Multiplexing Peptides pH effects phosphoproteomics scale‐down tandem mass tags Workflow |
title | Optimal analytical strategies for sensitive and quantitative phosphoproteomics using TMT‐based multiplexing |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T13%3A19%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Optimal%20analytical%20strategies%20for%20sensitive%20and%20quantitative%20phosphoproteomics%20using%20TMT%E2%80%90based%20multiplexing&rft.jtitle=Proteomics%20(Weinheim)&rft.au=Koenig,%20Claire&rft.date=2022-10&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=19-20&rft.spage=e2100245&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e2100245-n/a&rft.issn=1615-9853&rft.eissn=1615-9861&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/pmic.202100245&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2678428443%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2726322264&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |