基于itraq和无标记的蛋白质组学方法研究人类腺病毒感染。

International journal of proteomics Pub Date : 2013-01-01 Epub Date: 2013-03-11 DOI:10.1155/2013/581862
Hung V Trinh, Jonas Grossmann, Peter Gehrig, Bernd Roschitzki, Ralph Schlapbach, Urs F Greber, Silvio Hemmi
{"title":"基于itraq和无标记的蛋白质组学方法研究人类腺病毒感染。","authors":"Hung V Trinh,&nbsp;Jonas Grossmann,&nbsp;Peter Gehrig,&nbsp;Bernd Roschitzki,&nbsp;Ralph Schlapbach,&nbsp;Urs F Greber,&nbsp;Silvio Hemmi","doi":"10.1155/2013/581862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) and label-free methods are widely used for quantitative proteomics. Here, we provide a detailed evaluation of these proteomics approaches based on large datasets from biological samples. iTRAQ-label-based and label-free quantitations were compared using protein lysate samples from noninfected human lung epithelial A549 cells and from cells infected for 24 h with human adenovirus type 3 or type 5. Either iTRAQ-label-based or label-free methods were used, and the resulting samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography (LC) and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). To reduce a possible bias from quantitation software, we applied several software packages for each procedure. ProteinPilot and Scaffold Q+ software were used for iTRAQ-labeled samples, while Progenesis LC-MS and ProgenesisF-T2PQ/T3PQ were employed for label-free analyses. R (2) correlation coefficients correlated well between two software packages applied to the same datasets with values between 0.48 and 0.78 for iTRAQ-label-based quantitations and 0.5 and 0.86 for label-free quantitations. Analyses of label-free samples showed higher levels of protein up- or downregulation in comparison to iTRAQ-labeled samples. The concentration differences were further evaluated by Western blotting for four downregulated proteins. These data suggested that the label-free method was more accurate than the iTRAQ method.</p>","PeriodicalId":73474,"journal":{"name":"International journal of proteomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/581862","citationCount":"66","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"iTRAQ-Based and Label-Free Proteomics Approaches for Studies of Human Adenovirus Infections.\",\"authors\":\"Hung V Trinh,&nbsp;Jonas Grossmann,&nbsp;Peter Gehrig,&nbsp;Bernd Roschitzki,&nbsp;Ralph Schlapbach,&nbsp;Urs F Greber,&nbsp;Silvio Hemmi\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2013/581862\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Both isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) and label-free methods are widely used for quantitative proteomics. Here, we provide a detailed evaluation of these proteomics approaches based on large datasets from biological samples. iTRAQ-label-based and label-free quantitations were compared using protein lysate samples from noninfected human lung epithelial A549 cells and from cells infected for 24 h with human adenovirus type 3 or type 5. Either iTRAQ-label-based or label-free methods were used, and the resulting samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography (LC) and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). To reduce a possible bias from quantitation software, we applied several software packages for each procedure. ProteinPilot and Scaffold Q+ software were used for iTRAQ-labeled samples, while Progenesis LC-MS and ProgenesisF-T2PQ/T3PQ were employed for label-free analyses. R (2) correlation coefficients correlated well between two software packages applied to the same datasets with values between 0.48 and 0.78 for iTRAQ-label-based quantitations and 0.5 and 0.86 for label-free quantitations. Analyses of label-free samples showed higher levels of protein up- or downregulation in comparison to iTRAQ-labeled samples. The concentration differences were further evaluated by Western blotting for four downregulated proteins. These data suggested that the label-free method was more accurate than the iTRAQ method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of proteomics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/581862\",\"citationCount\":\"66\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of proteomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/581862\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/3/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of proteomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/581862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 66

摘要

相对和绝对定量等压标记(iTRAQ)和无标记方法是定量蛋白质组学中广泛使用的方法。在这里,我们基于来自生物样本的大型数据集对这些蛋白质组学方法进行了详细的评估。使用未感染的人肺上皮A549细胞和感染3型或5型人腺病毒24小时的细胞的蛋白裂解液样品,比较基于itraq标记和无标记的定量。采用基于itraq标记或无标记的方法,并采用液相色谱(LC)和串联质谱(MS/MS)对所得样品进行分析。为了减少定量软件可能产生的偏差,我们在每个程序中应用了几个软件包。itraq标记的样品采用ProteinPilot和Scaffold Q+软件,无标记分析采用Progenesis LC-MS和progenisf - t2pq /T3PQ软件。应用于相同数据集的两个软件包之间的R(2)相关系数相关性良好,基于itraq -label的定量在0.48 ~ 0.78之间,无label的定量在0.5 ~ 0.86之间。与itraq标记的样品相比,无标记样品的分析显示更高水平的蛋白质上调或下调。通过Western blotting进一步评估四种下调蛋白的浓度差异。这些数据表明,无标签法比iTRAQ法更准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
iTRAQ-Based and Label-Free Proteomics Approaches for Studies of Human Adenovirus Infections.

Both isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) and label-free methods are widely used for quantitative proteomics. Here, we provide a detailed evaluation of these proteomics approaches based on large datasets from biological samples. iTRAQ-label-based and label-free quantitations were compared using protein lysate samples from noninfected human lung epithelial A549 cells and from cells infected for 24 h with human adenovirus type 3 or type 5. Either iTRAQ-label-based or label-free methods were used, and the resulting samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography (LC) and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). To reduce a possible bias from quantitation software, we applied several software packages for each procedure. ProteinPilot and Scaffold Q+ software were used for iTRAQ-labeled samples, while Progenesis LC-MS and ProgenesisF-T2PQ/T3PQ were employed for label-free analyses. R (2) correlation coefficients correlated well between two software packages applied to the same datasets with values between 0.48 and 0.78 for iTRAQ-label-based quantitations and 0.5 and 0.86 for label-free quantitations. Analyses of label-free samples showed higher levels of protein up- or downregulation in comparison to iTRAQ-labeled samples. The concentration differences were further evaluated by Western blotting for four downregulated proteins. These data suggested that the label-free method was more accurate than the iTRAQ method.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Miniaturized Digestion and Extraction of Surface Proteins from Candida albicans following Treatment with Histatin 5 for Mass Spectrometry Analysis Comparative Proteomic Analysis of Differential Proteins in Response to Aqueous Extract of Quercus infectoria Gall in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Optimization of Urea Based Protein Extraction from Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue for Shotgun Proteomics Label-Free Proteomic Analysis of Flavohemoglobin Deleted Strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae S-Nitrosylation Proteome Profile of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells in Human Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1