Driving biochemical discovery with quantitative proteomics

Trends in Biochemical Sciences

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 170-177

  Washburn, Michael P ^a,b  

^a STOWERS INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPHRIN B1; EPHRIN B2; HISTONE DEACETYLASE 1; HISTONE DEACETYLASE 2; HISTONE H4; PHOSPHOPROTEIN PHOSPHATASE 2A; RAD52 PROTEIN;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; MASS SPECTROMETRY; NONHUMAN; POLYACRYLAMIDE GEL ELECTROPHORESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN PHOSPHORYLATION; PROTEIN PROCESSING; PROTEOMICS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; TWO DIMENSIONAL GEL ELECTROPHORESIS;

ANIMALS; HUMANS; PROTEIN PROCESSING, POST-TRANSLATIONAL; PROTEOMICS;

EID: 79952450613     PISSN: 09680004     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2010.09.001     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Hawkins R.D., et al. Next-generation genomics: an integrative approach. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11:476-486.
2. Li B., et al. The role of chromatin during transcription. Cell 2007, 128:707-719.
3. Choudhary C., Mann M. Decoding signalling networks by mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11:427-439.
4. Kline K.G., et al. Quantitative strategies to fuel the merger of discovery and hypothesis-driven shotgun proteomics. Brief. Funct. Genomic Proteomic 2009, 8:114-125.
5. Bantscheff M., et al. Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: a critical review. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 389:1017-1031.
6. Lundgren D.H., et al. Role of spectral counting in quantitative proteomics. Expert Rev. Proteomics 2010, 7:39-53.
7. Blackstock W.P., Weir M.P. Proteomics: quantitative and physical mapping of cellular proteins. Trends Biotechnol. 1999, 17:121-127.
8. Gygi S.P., et al. Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags. Nat. Biotechnol. 1999, 17:994-999.
9. Ross P.L., et al. Multiplexed protein quantitation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2004, 3:1154-1169.
10. Thompson A., et al. Tandem mass tags: a novel quantification strategy for comparative analysis of complex protein mixtures by MS/MS. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75:1895-1904.
11. Oda Y., et al. Accurate quantitation of protein expression and site-specific phosphorylation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1999, 96:6591-6596.
12. 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, 1:376-386.
13. Gouw J.W., et al. Quantitative proteomics by metabolic labeling of model organisms. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2010, 9:11-24.
14. Chelius D., Bondarenko P.V. Quantitative profiling of proteins in complex mixtures using liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 2002, 1:317-323.
15. Radulovic D., et al. Informatics platform for global proteomic profiling and biomarker discovery using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2004, 3:984-997.
16. Gao J., et al. Changes in the protein expression of yeast as a function of carbon source. J. Proteome Res. 2003, 2:643-649.
17. Liu H., et al. A model for random sampling and estimation of relative protein abundance in shotgun proteomics. Anal. Chem. 2004, 76:4193-4201.
18. Powell D.W., et al. Cluster analysis of mass spectrometry data reveals a novel component of SAGA. Mol. Cell Biol. 2004, 24:7249-7259.
19. Old W.M., et al. Comparison of label-free methods for quantifying human proteins by shotgun proteomics. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2005, 4:1487-1502.
20. Zybailov B., et al. Correlation of relative abundance ratios derived from peptide ion chromatograms and spectrum counting for quantitative proteomic analysis using stable isotope labeling. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77:6218-6224.
21. Zybailov B., et al. Statistical analysis of membrane proteome expression changes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Proteome Res. 2006, 5:2339-2347.
22. Griffin N.M., et al. Label-free, normalized quantification of complex mass spectrometry data for proteomic analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28:83-89.
23. Lu P., et al. Absolute protein expression profiling estimates the relative contributions of transcriptional and translational regulation. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25:117-124.
24. Park S.K., et al. A quantitative analysis software tool for mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nat. Methods 2008, 5:319-322.
25. Cox J., Mann M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26:1367-1372.
26. Witze E.S., et al. Mapping protein post-translational modifications with mass spectrometry. Nat. Methods 2007, 4:798-806.
27. Thingholm T.E., et al. Analytical strategies for phosphoproteomics. Proteomics 2009, 9:1451-1468.
28. Jorgensen C., et al. Cell-specific information processing in segregating populations of Eph receptor ephrin-expressing cells. Science 2009, 326:1502-1509.
29. Bennetzen M.V., et al. Site-specific phosphorylation dynamics of the nuclear proteome during the DNA damage response. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2010, 9:1314-1323.
30. Dephoure N., et al. A quantitative atlas of mitotic phosphorylation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:10762-10767.
31. Hilger M., et al. Systems-wide analysis of a phosphatase knock-down by quantitative proteomics and phosphoproteomics. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2009, 8:1908-1920.
32. Pan C., et al. Global effects of kinase inhibitors on signaling networks revealed by quantitative phosphoproteomics. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2009, 8:2796-2808.
33. Huang P.H., et al. Quantitative analysis of EGFRvIII cellular signaling networks reveals a combinatorial therapeutic strategy for glioblastoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104:12867-12872.
34. Huang P.H., et al. Phosphotyrosine signaling analysis of site-specific mutations on EGFRvIII identifies determinants governing glioblastoma cell growth. Mol. Biosyst. 2010, 6:1227-1237.
35. Bodenmiller B., et al. Reproducible isolation of distinct, overlapping segments of the phosphoproteome. Nat. Methods 2007, 4:231-237.
36. Kubota K., et al. Sensitive multiplexed analysis of kinase activities and activity-based kinase identification. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27:933-940.
37. Yu Y., et al. A site-specific, multiplexed kinase activity assay using stable-isotope dilution and high-resolution mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:11606-11611.
38. Wolf-Yadlin A., et al. Multiple reaction monitoring for robust quantitative proteomic analysis of cellular signaling networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104:5860-5865.
39. Li J., et al. A chemical and phosphoproteomic characterization of dasatinib action in lung cancer. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6:291-299.
40. Peng J., et al. A proteomics approach to understanding protein ubiquitination. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003, 21:921-926.
41. Jeram S.M., et al. Using mass spectrometry to identify ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like protein conjugation sites. Proteomics 2009, 9:922-934.
42. Burande C.F., et al. A label-free quantitative proteomics strategy to identify E3 ubiquitin ligase substrates targeted to proteasome degradation. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2009, 8:1719-1727.
43. Xu P., et al. Quantitative proteomics reveals the function of unconventional ubiquitin chains in proteasomal degradation. Cell 2009, 137:133-145.
44. Meierhofer D., et al. Quantitative analysis of global ubiquitination in HeLa cells by mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 2008, 7:4566-4576.
45. Jeram S.M., et al. An improved SUMmOn-based methodology for the identification of ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like protein conjugation sites identifies novel ubiquitin-like protein chain linkages. Proteomics 2010, 10:254-265.
46. Nielsen M.L., et al. Iodoacetamide-induced artifact mimics ubiquitination in mass spectrometry. Nat. Methods 2008, 5:459-460.
47. MacCoss M.J., et al. Shotgun identification of protein modifications from protein complexes and lens tissue. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002, 99:7900-7905.
48. Pesavento J.J., et al. Combinatorial modification of human histone H4 quantitated by two-dimensional liquid chromatography coupled with top down mass spectrometry. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283:14927-14937.
49. Pesavento J.J., et al. Quantitative analysis of modified proteins and their positional isomers by tandem mass spectrometry: human histone H4. Anal. Chem. 2006, 78:4271-4280.
50. Phanstiel D., et al. Mass spectrometry identifies and quantifies 74 unique histone H4 isoforms in differentiating human embryonic stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:4093-4098.
51. Jung H.R., et al. Quantitative mass spectrometry of histones H3.2 and H3.3 in Suz12-deficient mouse embryonic stem cells reveals distinct, dynamic post-translational modifications at Lys-27 and Lys-36. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2010, 9:838-850.
52. Zee B.M., et al. In vivo residue-specific histone methylation dynamics. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285:3341-3350.
53. Plazas-Mayorca M.D., et al. One-pot shotgun quantitative mass spectrometry characterization of histones. J. Proteome Res. 2009, 8:5367-5374.
54. Sardiu M.E., et al. Probabilistic assembly of human protein interaction networks from label-free quantitative proteomics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:1454-1459.
55. Selbach M., Mann M. Protein interaction screening by quantitative immunoprecipitation combined with knockdown (QUICK). Nat. Methods 2006, 3:981-983.
56. Tackett A.J., et al. I-DIRT, a general method for distinguishing between specific and nonspecific protein interactions. J. Proteome Res. 2005, 4:1752-1756.
57. Ku W.C., et al. Complementary quantitative proteomics reveals that transcription factor AP-4 mediates E-box-dependent complex formation for transcriptional repression of HDM2. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2009, 8:2034-2050.
58. Pflieger D., et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis of protein complexes: concurrent identification of interactors and their state of phosphorylation. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2008, 7:326-346.
59. Hemming M.L., et al. Identification of beta-secretase (BACE1) substrates using quantitative proteomics. PLoS One 2009, 4:e8477.
60. Akiyoshi B., et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis of purified yeast kinetochores identifies a PP1 regulatory subunit. Genes Dev. 2009, 23:2887-2899.
61. Mittler G., et al. A SILAC-based DNA protein interaction screen that identifies candidate binding proteins to functional DNA elements. Genome Res. 2009, 19:284-293.
62. Butter F., et al. Unbiased RNA-protein interaction screen by quantitative proteomics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:10626-10631.
63. Ong S.E., et al. Identifying the proteins to which small-molecule probes and drugs bind in cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106:4617-4622.
64. Du Y., et al. Streamline proteomic approach for characterizing protein-protein interaction network in a RAD52 protein complex. J. Proteome Res. 2009, 8:2211-2217.
65. Paoletti A.C., et al. Quantitative proteomic analysis of distinct mammalian Mediator complexes using normalized spectral abundance factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006, 103:18928-18933.
66. Sardiu M.E., et al. Determining protein complex connectivity using a probabilistic deletion network derived from quantitative proteomics. PLoS One 2009, 4:e7310.
67. Malovannaya A., et al. Streamlined analysis schema for high-throughput identification of endogenous protein complexes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2010, 107:2431-2436.
68. Mousson F., et al. Quantitative proteomics reveals regulation of dynamic components within TATA-binding protein (TBP) transcription complexes. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2008, 7:845-852.
69. Pijnappel W.P., et al. Quantitative mass spectrometry of TATA binding protein-containing complexes and subunit phosphorylations during the cell cycle. Proteome Sci. 2009, 7:46.
70. Baker C.L., et al. Quantitative proteomics reveals a dynamic interactome and phase-specific phosphorylation in the Neurospora circadian clock. Mol. Cell 2009, 34:354-363.
71. von Kriegsheim A., et al. Cell fate decisions are specified by the dynamic ERK interactome. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11:1458-1464.
72. Posokhova E., et al. Proteomic identification of Hsc70 as a mediator of RGS9-2 degradation by in vivo interactome analysis. J. Proteome Res. 2010, 9:1510-1521.
73. Smith K.T., et al. Deacetylase inhibitors dissociate the histone-targeting ING2 subunit from the Sin3 complex. Chem. Biol. 2010, 17:65-74.
74. Smart S.K., et al. Mapping the local protein interactome of the NuA3 histone acetyltransferase. Protein Sci. 2009, 18:1987-1997.
75. Wang X., Huang L. Identifying dynamic interactors of protein complexes by quantitative mass spectrometry. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2008, 7:46-57.
76. Guerrero C., et al. Characterization of the proteasome interaction network using a QTAX-based tag-team strategy and protein interaction network analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:13333-13338.
77. Kaake R.M., et al. Characterization of cell cycle specific protein interaction networks of the yeast 26S proteasome complex by the QTAX strategy. J. Proteome Res. 2010, 9:2016-2029.
78. Wepf A., et al. Quantitative interaction proteomics using mass spectrometry. Nat. Methods 2009, 6:203-205.
79. Goudreault M., et al. A PP2A phosphatase high density interaction network identifies a novel striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase complex linked to the cerebral cavernous malformation 3 (CCM3) protein. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2009, 8:157-171.
80. Sowa M.E., et al. Defining the human deubiquitinating enzyme interaction landscape. Cell 2009, 138:389-403.
81. Breitkreutz A., et al. A global protein kinase and phosphatase interaction network in yeast. Science 2010, 328:1043-1046.
82. Choi H., et al. Significance analysis of spectral count data in label-free shotgun proteomics. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2008, 7:2373-2385.
83. Pavelka N., et al. Statistical similarities between transcriptomics and quantitative shotgun proteomics data. Mol. Cell Proteomics 2008, 7:631-644.