Advertisement

Bioinformatics Procedures for Analysis of Quantitative Proteomics Experiments Using iTRAQ

  • Pim van NieropEmail author
  • Maarten Loos
Protocol
Part of the Neuromethods book series (NM, volume 57)

Abstract

The combined use of liquid chromatography followed by tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) in proteomics research has proven to be a valuable asset in the success of this field of science. Advances in LC-MS-MS technology have allowed researchers to identify an increasing number of proteins from complex biological preparations in a high-throughput fashion. Moreover, techniques based on the labeling of peptides with stable isotopes have made it possible to determine relative differences in abundance of proteins between biological samples. As has been the case for microarray technology, the newly emerging field of quantitative proteomics is associated with the development of novel bioinformatics and statistical approaches that, within the boundaries of particular aspects and limitations of the technique, allow us to ask biological questions and derive meaningful answers (1–3). In this chapter, we describe a protocol of an integrated bioinformatics workflow that deals with the identification of proteins and the relative quantification using iTRAQ labeling in complex proteomics experiments that also involves comparison of quantitative data obtained in separate LC-MS-MS runs.

Key words

Proteomics iTRAQ Bioinformatics Protocol Mascot server Sequence clustering 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Roel van der Schors for his assistance and Matrix Science for correction of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Klychnikov, O.I., et al., Quantitative cortical synapse proteomics of a transgenic migraine mouse model with mutated Ca(V)2.1 calcium channels. Proteomics, 2010. 10(13): p. 2531–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van den Oever, M.C., et al., Prefrontal cortex AMPA receptor plasticity is crucial for cue-induced relapse to heroin-seeking. Nat Neurosci, 2008. 11(9): p. 1053–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Engelhardt, J., et al., CKAMP44: a brain-specific protein attenuating short-term synaptic plasticity in the dentate gyrus. Science, 2010. 327(5972): p. 1518–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perkins, D.N., et al., Probability-based protein identification by searching sequence databases using mass spectrometry data. Electrophoresis, 1999. 20: p. 3551–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yates, J.R., III, et al., Method to correlate tandem mass spectra of modified peptides to amino acid sequences in the protein database. Anal Chem, 1995. 67(8): p. 1426–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The UniProt Consortium, The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010. Nucleic Acids Res, 2010. 38(Database issue): p. D142–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kersey, P.J., et al., The International Protein Index: an integrated database for proteo­mics ­experiments. Proteomics, 2004. 4(7): p. 1985–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    NCBI website. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
  9. 9.
    Swissprot detail page. Available from: http://www.expasy.ch/sprot/sprot_details.html.
  10. 10.
    IPI FAQ. Available from: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/IPI/FAQs.html.
  11. 11.
    Hu, Q., et al., The Orbitrap: a new mass spectrometer. J Mass Spectrom, 2005. 40(4): p. 430–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alves, G., et al., Enhancing peptide identification confidence by combining search methods. J Proteome Res, 2008. 7(8): p. 3102–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bradshaw, R.A., et al., Reporting protein identification data: the next generation of guidelines. Mol Cell Proteomics, 2006. 5(5): p. 787–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zieske, L.R., A perspective on the use of iTRAQ reagent technology for protein complex and ­profiling studies. J Exp Bot, 2006. 57(7): p. 1501–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ong, S.E., et al., Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture, SILAC, as a simple and accurate approach to expression proteomics. Mol Cell Proteomics, 2002. 1(5): p. 376–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matrix Science homepage. Available from: www.matrixscience.com.
  17. 17.
    ActiveState home page. Available from: www.activestate.com.
  18. 18.
    NCBI FTP site. Available from: ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/executables/LATEST/.
  19. 19.
    Bioperl home page. Available from: www.bioperl.org.
  20. 20.
    Tusher, V.G., R. Tibshirani, and G. Chu, Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2001. 98(9): p. 5116–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Molecular and Cellular Neurobiology, Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive ResearchVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations