Dataset Information

Bottom-up and middle-down proteomics have comparable accuracies in defining histone post-translational modification relative abundance and stoichiometry.

ABSTRACT: Histone proteins are key components of chromatin. Their N-terminal tails are enriched in combinatorial post-translational modifications (PTMs), which influence gene regulation, DNA repair, and chromosome condensation. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based middle-down proteomics has emerged as a technique to analyze co-occurring PTMs, as it allows for the characterization of intact histone tails (>50 aa) rather than short (<20 aa) peptides analyzed by bottom-up. However, a demonstration of its reliability is still lacking. We compared results obtained with the middle-down and the bottom-up strategy in calculating PTM relative abundance and stoichiometry. Since bottom-up was proven to have biases in peptide signal detection such as uneven ionization efficiency, we performed an external correction using a synthetic peptide library with known peptide relative abundance. Corrected bottom-up data were used as reference. Calculated abundances of single PTMs showed similar deviations from the reference when comparing middle-down and uncorrected bottom-up results. Moreover, we show that the two strategies provided similar performance in defining accurate PTM stoichiometry. Collectively, we evidenced that the middle-down strategy is at least equally reliable to bottom-up in quantifying histone PTMs.

SUBMITTER: Sidoli S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4469134 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bottom-up and middle-down proteomics have comparable accuracies in defining histone post-translational modification relative abundance and stoichiometry.

Sidoli Simone S Lin Shu S Karch Kelly R KR Garcia Benjamin A BA

Analytical chemistry 20150303 6

Histone proteins are key components of chromatin. Their N-terminal tails are enriched in combinatorial post-translational modifications (PTMs), which influence gene regulation, DNA repair, and chromosome condensation. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based middle-down proteomics has emerged as a technique to analyze co-occurring PTMs, as it allows for the characterization of intact histone tails (>50 aa) rather than short (<20 aa) peptides analyzed by bottom-up. However, a demonstration of its reliability ...[more]

PMID: 25719549

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bottom-up proteomics relies on the use of proteases and is the method of choice for identifying thousands of protein groups in complex samples. Top-down proteomics has been shown to be robust for direct analysis of small proteins and offers a solution to the "peptide-to-protein" inference problem inherent with bottom-up approaches. Here, we describe the first large-scale integration of genomic, bottom-up and top-down proteomic data for the comparative analysis of patient-derived mouse xenograft models of basal and luminal B human breast cancer, WHIM2 and WHIM16, respectively. Using these well-characterized xenograft models established by the National Cancer Institute's Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, we compared and contrasted the performance of bottom-up and top-down proteomics to detect cancer-specific aberrations at the peptide and proteoform levels and to measure differential expression of proteins and proteoforms. Bottom-up proteomic analysis of the tumor xenografts detected almost 10 times as many coding nucleotide polymorphisms and peptides resulting from novel splice junctions than top-down. For proteins in the range of 0-30 kDa, where quantitation was performed using both approaches, bottom-up proteomics quantified 3,519 protein groups from 49,185 peptides, while top-down proteomics quantified 982 proteoforms mapping to 358 proteins. Examples of both concordant and discordant quantitation were found in a ∼60:40 ratio, providing a unique opportunity for top-down to fill in missing information. The two techniques showed complementary performance, with bottom-up yielding eight times more identifications of 0-30 kDa proteins in xenograft proteomes, but failing to detect differences in certain posttranslational modifications (PTMs), such as phosphorylation pattern changes of alpha-endosulfine. This work illustrates the potency of a combined bottom-up and top-down proteomics approach to deepen our knowledge of cancer biology, especially when genomic data are available.

Dataset Information

Bottom-up and middle-down proteomics have comparable accuracies in defining histone post-translational modification relative abundance and stoichiometry.

Publications

Bottom-up and middle-down proteomics have comparable accuracies in defining histone post-translational modification relative abundance and stoichiometry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets