Tools for Label-free Peptide Quantification

Abstract

The increasing scale and complexity of quantitative proteomics studies complicate subsequent analysis of the acquired data. Untargeted label-free quantification, based either on feature intensities or on spectral counting, is a method that scales particularly well with respect to the number of samples. It is thus an excellent alternative to labeling techniques. In order to profit from this scalability, however, data analysis has to cope with large amounts of data, process them automatically, and do a thorough statistical analysis in order to achieve reliable results. We review the state of the art with respect to computational tools for label-free quantification in untargeted proteomics. The two fundamental approaches are feature-based quantification, relying on the summed-up mass spectrometric intensity of peptides, and spectral counting, which relies on the number of MS/MS spectra acquired for a certain protein. We review the current algorithmic approaches underlying some widely used software packages and briefly discuss the statistical strategies for analyzing the data. Over recent decades, mass spectrometry has become the analytical method of choice in most proteomics studies (e.g. Refs. 1-4). A standard mass spectrometric workflow allows for both protein identification and protein quantification (5) in some form. For a long time, the technology has been used mainly for qualitative assessments of protein mixtures, namely, to assess whether a specific protein is in the sample or not. However, for the majority of interesting research questions, especially in the field of systems biology, this binary information (present or not) is not sufficient (6). The necessity of more detailed information on protein expression levels drives the field of quantitative proteomics (7, 8), which enables the integration of proteomics data with other data sources and allows network-centered studies, as reviewed in Ref. 9. Recent studies show that mass-spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics experiments can provide quantitative information (relative or absolute) for large parts, if not the entire set, of expressed proteins (10 -12).Since the isotope-coded affinity tag protocol was first published in 1999 (13), numerous labeling strategies have found their way into the field of quantitative proteomics (14). These include isotope-coded protein labeling (15), metabolic labeling (16, 17), and isobaric tags (18,19). Comprehensive overviews of different quantification strategies can be found in Refs. 20 and 21. Because of the shortcomings of labeling strategies, label-free methods are increasingly gaining the interest of proteomics researchers (22, 23). In label-free quantification, no label is introduced to either of the samples. All samples are analyzed in separate LC/MS experiments, and the individual peptide properties of the individual measurements are then compared. Regardless of the quantification strategy, computational approaches for data analyses have become the critical final step of the proteomics workflow. Overviews of e...

The Ewing Sarcoma Secretome and Its Response to Activation of Wnt/beta-catenin Signaling

“…Since we used unlabeled mass spectrometry, all quantification was done using spectral counting and peptide-spectra-match (PSM) counts for each protein (26). The total number of proteins identified in the conditioned media was 2336 proteins for TC32 and 857 for CHLA10 cells (Supplemental Table 1).…”

Methylcrotonyl-CoA Carboxylase Regulates Triacylglycerol Accumulation in the Model Diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum

“…With recent advances in mass spectrometry, label-free quantitative proteomic approaches have progressed and are now considered to be reliable, robust, and efficient methods to study changes in protein abundance in complex mixtures (Geetha et al, 2011;Megger et al, 2013). These approaches are based either on measuring a peptide's response (intensity) in the mass spectrometer as a quantitative method, or counting and comparing the number of peptide-to-spectrum matches obtained for each protein (Pham et al, 2012;Nahnsen et al, 2013). Although considered less accurate than the isotope labeling methods, they have the advantage of generating higher proteome coverage, higher dynamic range, and a simpler experimental protocol.…”

A Survey of the Impact of Deyolking on Biological Processes Covered by Shotgun Proteomic Analyses of Zebrafish Embryos

“…[13][14][15] In addition, many laboratories take advantage of label-free methods for quantitative proteomics. 16 Recently, the MS/MS total ion current (''MS 2 TIC'') method has been successfully introduced into proteomics workflow to permit untargeted quantification. 17 MS 2 TIC measurements can be employed reportedly over a large dynamic range, 17 which is ideally suited for a label-free evaluation of the commonly used deyolking procedure of zebrafish embryos 1 in the context of shotgun proteomics studies.…”