Abstract
Mass spectrometry has proven to be an indispensable tool for protein identification, characterization, and quantification. Among the possible methods in quantitative proteomics, stable isotope labeling by using reductive dimethylation has emerged as a cost-effective, simple, but powerful method able to compete at any level with the present alternatives. In this review, we briefly introduce experimental and software methods for proteome analysis using dimethyl labeling and provide a comprehensive overview of reported applications in the analysis of (1) differential protein expression, (2) posttranslational modifications, and (3) protein interactions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Robust and accurate quantification of protein expression levels is essential for deciphering the dynamics of proteomes. Mass spectrometry (MS) provides an excellent platform for quantitative proteomics [1–4], with the most common and precise quantitative approaches using stable isotopes [5, 6]. In recent years several quantitative MS-based technologies have evolved to interrogate the complexity, interconnectivity, and dynamic nature of proteomes. Isotope incorporation can occur metabolically in cell culture [7, 8], by labeling whole organisms [9], or via chemical labeling at the protein [10] or peptide [11–13] level. A relative newcomer in the latter category is dimethyl labeling, sometimes also referred to as reductive dimethylation. In this review we focus solely on this method, and describe its history, mechanism, procedures, and applications in the proteomics field.
Stable isotope dimethyl labeling
The chemical reaction employed for introducing dimethyl groups possessing heavy stable isotopes has been known for a long time, and was, for instance, used more than 30 years ago for labeling proteins to increase the sensitivity for 13C NMR analysis [14]. It was only in 2003 that Hsu et al. [15] introduced stable isotope dimethyl labeling as a quantitative proteomics technology. Highly selective dimethylation of primary amines (N-termini and lysine residue side chain) is achieved through reductive amination using formaldehyde and cyanoborohydride (Fig. 1). The reaction, which is optimally performed at near-neutral pH, involves the formation of a Schiff base (reaction of formaldehyde with the amine), which is subsequently reduced by cyanoborohydride. The reaction is very fast and goes to completion in only a few minutes, does not give rise to any significant side products [14], and has no negative impact on MS/MS peptide identification. With use of dimethylation, all primary amines present in the sample are converted, with the only exception being an N-terminal proline, in which a monomethylamine is formed [16]. This means that, when trypsin is used to digest protein samples, the peptides generated from cleavage of arginine will have a single label (at their N-terminus) and lysine-cleaved peptides will have two labels (N-terminus and lysine side chain). If one prefers the same number of dimethyl groups per peptide, then one can first protect the lysine side chains by guanidination, resulting in only N-terminal dimethylation, a method that has been termed 2MEGA [17].
The original setup used two labels and relied on the incorporation of only deuterium as a heavy isotope. The analysis of up to four different samples using only deuterium isotopes has been shown, but required the use of endoproteinase Lys-C instead of trypsin to ensure sufficient mass difference between the differentially labeled peptides, because the mass difference per labeling event in that setup was only 2 Da [18]. Boersema et al. [13] developed a labeling scheme that allowed the simultaneous analysis of three samples, while retaining a mass difference of 4 Da with the inclusion of formaldehyde containing also 13C (Fig. 1). It was shown that such a scheme allows reliable quantification of trypsin-generated peptides that contain only a single labeling site (i.e., arginine-cleaved peptides). Although this triple labeling greatly reduced the amount of overlapping between isotopic peaks of different labels, it was shown very recently that the quantitation of such peptides can be further improved by in silico deconvolution of the isotope clusters [19].
Over the last couple of years, dimethyl labeling has been shown to be compatible with a variety of common peptide separation and enrichment strategies, including separation of peptides by regular C18 reversed-phase liquid chromatography (LC), high-pH reversed-phase LC, strong cation exchange (SCX), and hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC) [13, 20–22]. The deuterium present in some of the labels has been shown to lead to a small shift in retention time for the deuterium-containing peptides, but as long as quantification of the peptides is based on the entire extracted ion peaks of each of the three m/z values for a peptide, this has little to no effect on quantitation accuracy [23]. In addition to generic separation strategies, dimethylation has also been used successfully in combination with specific enrichment methods, especially for phosphorylated peptides. These include combinations with immobilized metal ion affinity chromatography (IMAC) [24, 25] and TiO2 affinity chromatography [26] enrichment as well as the specific immunoprecipitation of peptides containing phosphorylated tyrosine residues [27].
Since most chemical labeling strategies for quantitative proteomics are sensitive to deviations in reaction efficiency and sample handling, efforts have been made toward the automation and robustness of the dimethylation procedure. In 2008, Raijmakers et al. [28] showed that it was possible to perform reductive amination on peptides that were noncovalently bound to C18 solid-phase material and that this could be performed online with LC-MS/MS analysis in an automated fashion. As this method placed restrictions on the size and complexity of the sample to be labeled and analyzed, it was later extended to automated labeling combined with SCX separation [29] and even automated labeling combined with online two-dimensional separation (C18-SCX) [30]. A very detailed protocol describing the original in-solution labeling as well as the solid-phase labeling and automated online labeling is available [31].
Although most often performed at the peptide level, stable isotope dimethyl labeling can also be done on intact proteins, for example, to aid the identification of protein N-termini [32, 33]. It is more difficult to force the reaction to completion and, if used for proteomics approaches, it places restraints on the proteases that can be used, as neither trypsin nor Lys-C cleave dimethylated lysine residues [34]. The use of the dimethylation reaction has also been explored for purposes other than quantitative proteomics, such as the improvement of peptide identification by electron transfer dissociation fragmentation [35] and as an aid in the de novo sequencing of peptides and proteins for which no genome sequences are available [35]. Although those applications might be more specialized, the stable isotope dimethylation procedure is now being applied widely for quantitative proteomics, especially for samples where metabolic labeling is not easily achievable, for example, patient material or other tissue samples, as described in more detail later in this review. In this review we will not describe in detail the protocols for stable isotope dimethyl labeling, as these are readily available [31, 36], but we will instead focus on applications and data analysis.
Data analysis
From a bioinformatics perspective, stable isotope dimethylation is a relatively straightforward technique. Quantification is performed at the MS level, by comparing the relative abundances of the differentially labeled peptides, whereas identification is achieved at the MS/MS level, by setting N-terminal and lysine dimethylation as peptide modification. Two main threats frequently affecting stable isotope labeling [37] have been reported to possibly hamper the quantification of dimethylated peptides: retention time shifts between the labeled pairs and overlap of their isotopic clusters. Nevertheless, effective strategies to overcome both issues have been devised since the first studies introducing the procedure.
Retention time shifts can affect heavy deuterated peptides when reversed-phase chromatography is used, causing them to be eluted prior to the corresponding light ones [38]. When labeled pairs are deemed chromatographically resolved, retention time shifts can simply be circumvented by quantifying peptide extracted ion chromatograms (XICs) rather than their intensities in one particular scan [31]. A similar approach was originally described in the seminal publication by Hsu et al. [15], in which all spectra containing both the H4- and D4-labeled isotopologues of a given peptide were combined to produce a composite MS spectrum. The number of combined spectra was dependent on the peptide elution time and on the instrument duty cycle: at an acquisition rate of one scan per second, this typically meant combining 20 to 60 spectra, which was generally sufficient to span the whole peptide elution profile and mathematically equivalent to performing whole XIC area integration. By this strategy, the inaccuracy of quantification caused by differential elution between the deuterated and the nondeuterated peptides, the so-called deuterium effect, was found to be minor. Peptide ratios were then calculated from the relative intensities of the monoisotopic peaks in the composite MS spectrum.
Similar conclusions about a negligible deuterium effect were drawn by Ji and Li [23], who explicitly indicated the importance of summing up intensities over the entire elution profiles, in order to achieve accurate quantification. They were also the first to devise a dedicated strategy to tackle the overlapping issue [23], which occurs whenever the mass shift between the peptide pairs is smaller than their isotopic envelope, and was found to become more critical as the mass of the original peptides increases, especially when approaching 3 kDa [19]. The problem can particularly affect dimethyl-labeled peptides without a lysine residue, because they have a mass shift of only 4 Da between their isotopologues, resulting in the overlap of the fifth and consecutive peaks of the lighter peptide on the isotopic distribution of the heavier one. The overlap can clearly hamper quantification accuracy, with a typical upward bias for the heavy labeled peptides. In the proposed strategy, when overlapping occurred, the peptide sequences were submitted to the Web-based tool MS-Isotope, which is embedded in the ProteinProspector package [39] in order to model their theoretical isotopic distributions and to disentangle their relative contributions. In brief, the contribution of the lighter peptide was subtracted from the convoluted isotope pattern in order to obtain the correct peak distribution of the heavier peptide. Correct peptide ratios were then determined by using the deconvoluted monoisotopic peak intensities.
In the early work, quantification of the different peak intensities was performed manually, or by means of simple scripts that allowed batch processing [40]. At a later stage, when the technique started to gain popularity, many more software tools were adapted to allow the quantification of dimethyl-labeled peptides. Today, the most used tools include open-source software, such as MSQuant [41], MaxQuant [42], PVIEW [43], and the XPRESS algorithm [44] embedded in the Trans-Proteomic Pipeline [45], commercial software, such as Proteome Discoverer (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and commercial software packages, such as Mascot Distiller (http://www.matrixscience.com/distiller.html).
To our knowledge, no systematic study has been presented yet to compare the quantification performance of the different software packages on dimethyl labeling (as has been performed, e.g., for SILAC labeling [46]). For this reason, a few recommendations that can help drive the choice of the most appropriate tool will be given in the remainder of this introduction.
The initial consideration is purely pragmatic: the choice cannot prescind from the instruments and tools already present and commonly used in the laboratory. Proteome Discoverer and MaxQuant, for instance, can only analyze Thermo .raw data files. Similarly, Mascot Distiller should be excluded a priori if Mascot is not the common or favorite database searched for identification. The second consideration is merely economic: commercial packages such as Mascot Distiller are quite expensive, but the cost can be justified when versatility is a prerequisite, in terms of supported instruments and labeling techniques. A third practical consideration regards software usability, which is often directly related to the presence of a good graphical user interface. To this extent, MSQuant has often been preferred to other tools that give a more “black box” feeling and has become the most used tool for dimethyl labeling quantification. The program probably gained its popularity thanks to its interactive feedback during the quantification process, which allows visual inspection of differentially expressed peptides and proper integration over their entire XICs, and because of the possibility to directly interface its output with postprocessing tools such as StatQuant [47] for normalization, outlier detection, and further statistical analysis.
On a more technical note, the choice should also be based on the possibility to deal with the retention time shift and the overlapping issues introduced above. To overcome the deuterium effect, as already mentioned, simple strategies that calculate peptide ratios based on the area under the XIC peaks should be always preferred to more advanced algorithms such as the one implemented in MaxQuant, which compares the intensities of the isotopologues in all scans across the XIC and fits a straight line through the origin of their scatter plot. This algorithm was originally implemented for SILAC data and works very well for high-quality data, but becomes unreliable in the presence of large retention time shifts. In this regard, Mascot Distiller gives the option to choose between the two quantification strategies. The second issue has been almost completely disregarded by quantification software, probably because it is known to affect only very large peaks. To our knowledge, Overlapping Peaks Finder [19] is still the only tool purposely devised for dimethyl labeling. The algorithm can be used in the form of a postprocessing script and can correct quantitative results obtained by quantitation software programs that evaluate peptide ratios based on the XICs of their monoisotopic peaks ions, such as MSQuant and XPRESS.
The last consideration regards peptide identification. For most tools the quantification process is search-results-driven, so only peptides identified by the database search are matched to the precursor signals for quantification. Recent algorithms, though, have enabled a multiplexed strategy for feature-driven quantification, in which feature detection is anticipated and drives database searches by better tailored constraints. When, for instance, MaxQuant is used, the labeling state of paired peptides is determined in advance, so as to allow separate database searches where each methylation state is set as a fixed modification. With a slightly different approach, PVIEW treats “light” methylation as a fixed modification and “intermediate” and ”heavy” methylations as modifications that are variable with respect to the “light” one. These customized approaches should allow one to use a smaller search space than the one created by setting “light”, “intermediate,” and “heavy” methylations as variable modifications (as in Proteome Discoverer), thus reducing the probability to match false-positive identifications.
Applications of stable isotope dimethyl labeling in proteomics
As mentioned already, stable isotope dimethyl labeling has been incorporated into many types of experiments, albeit mostly for the purpose of relative quantification of protein expression. We have broadly separated these applications into global quantitative expression proteomics, quantitative analysis of posttranslational modifications (PTMs), and protein interaction studies. As more than 70 applications have been reported since 2003, we have made a selection and we highlight a few studies in more detail, but also provide a more comprehensive list of published work using stable isotope dimethyl labeling.
Stable isotope dimethyl labeling for quantitative expression proteomics
The most widely used application of stable isotope dimethyl labeling in proteomics is as a quantification tool to determine globally the relative levels of protein expression between cellular or tissue states. A general strategy in an expression proteomics experiment using stable isotope dimethyl labeling can be illustrated by experiments performed by Munoz et al. [48] to compare the proteomes of human embryonic stem cells (hSECs), human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs), and the fibroblast cells from which the latter originated. In order to characterize the differences and similarities in the protein content of hESC and hiPSC, an in-depth quantitative proteome profiling experiment was executed using two different hiPSC lines, their two parental fibroblast cell lines, and one hESC line. Skin fibroblast (i.e., IMR90) and foreskin fibroblasts (4Skin) were reprogrammed into hiPSCs. A schematic of the experimental workflow is shown in Fig. 2a. Cells were lysed and peptides were digested. hiPSC peptides were labeled with light isotopes, hESC peptides were labeled with intermediate-mass isotopes, and parental fibroblast cell peptides were labeled with heavy isotopes. Labeled peptides were mixed in a 1:1:1 ratio based on total peptide amount determined by running an aliquot of the labeled samples in a regular LC-MS experiment and comparing the overall peptide signal intensity, fractionated by SCX, and analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Independent biological replicates were performed, whereby the light and intermediate (hiPSC and hESC) isotope labels were swapped. Peptides appeared as a triplet in the mass spectra. Because the light, intermediate-mass, and heavy peptides are nearly chemically identical, except for their mass difference [31], the ratio of peak intensities directly yields the ratio of the proteins in hiPSCs, hESCs, and fibroblasts, respectively.
Combining all the data from the two experiments and two replicates, more than 10,000 proteins were identified, of which 7,000 proteins could be quantified. The comparative analysis focused on a smaller set of 2,683 proteins quantified in all experiments and replicates. The data revealed that protein expression of 98.7 % of quantified proteins was alike in the hESC and hiPSC proteomes, whereby only a small group of 58 proteins was found to be differentially expressed (Fig. 2b, c). These quantitative results indicate the reprogramming process remodeled the proteomes of both fibroblast cell lines to a proteome profile, which closely resembles the hESC proteome, making at the proteome level hiPSCs nearly indistinguishable from hESCs. In a comparable study, Phanstiel et al. [49] analyzed molecular differences between hESCs and hiPSCs at the proteome level using iTRAQ isobaric tagging for quantification. Both studies came to the identical conclusion that at the proteome level hiPSCs are nearly indistinguishable from hESCs. Moreover, from a technical point of view, it was also interesting to see that the depth of proteome coverage and the accuracy and precision in protein quantification were alike, implying that stable isotope dimethyl labeling and iTRAQ can achieve similar levels of depth and accuracy in quantification.
The broad potential and suitability of stable isotope dimethyl labeling for global quantitative expression proteomics has been demonstrated by several groups on samples from a variety of cells, tissues, and body fluids. To illustrate this, point we give an overview of recent studies in Table 1. Clearly the method is suitable for a wide range of samples, allowing deep coverage of the proteome and allowing adaptation to minute amounts of sample.
We finish this section by highlighting an interesting study using dimethyl labeling in population proteomics, highlighting that the method can also be used to probe large amounts of samples, as represented when proteomes need to be probed differentially across and within populations to define and better understand protein variation. With the massive number of samples from several populations to be analyzed, dimethyl labeling was used as it is cost-effective. Parker et al. [50] reported the differential proteomes of honeybees from geographically different bee farms with the aim of determining the diversity of protein expression in commercial honeybee populations and of identifying the mechanisms used by the bees to adapt to different ecological conditions. They conducted a large-sale quantitative proteomics analysis of the midgut proteome from adult nurse bees from eight different locations. Between four and 11 colonies from each location were sampled, each colony was sampled in triplicate, and each replicate comprised midguts from five nurse bees. They applied a dimethyl triplex labeling and a random block experimental design to derive relative expression profiles for all proteins across all colonies studied. One block was a triplex analysis of bees from three different colonies. In total 58 blocks were analyzed. Overall, 578 proteins were quantified, from which 170 proteins showed differential expression in midguts correlating with distinct populations. Their dimethyl-labeling-based quantitative proteomics study revealed that bees indeed adapt to different climates. For example, the major energy-producing pathways of mitochondria were consistently higher in bees in colder climates, whereas upregulation of some proteins involved in metabolism was observed in bees originating from warmer climates [50].
Dimethyl labeling for the analysis of protein posttranslational modifications
Next to the measurement of global protein expression profiles, MS has also become a tool of choice for the analysis of protein PTMs. It can unravel PTMs without prior knowledge and it is typically much more comprehensive, specific, and quantitative than antibody-based methods. Recent parallel developments in MS and chromatography, including new techniques for enriching peptides bearing a PTM, and concomitant improvements in bioinformatics software have facilitated the global analysis of PTMs, making it possible to pinpoint them with single amino acid resolution [51–53]. However, identification of PTM sites by MS can be hindered by the low abundance of the modified peptides, especially in the case of signaling proteins, which are also often modified at substoichiometric levels. Luckily, this problem can largely be addressed by modification-specific enrichments. However, for functional annotation, the goal of large-scale PTM studies is not just to catalog many PTM sites but more importantly to determine how the identified PTMs change after a particular cell signaling pathway is activated or during disease development.
Stable isotope dimethyl labeling in combination with targeted enrichment provides a nice platform for the quantitative analysis of protein PTMs, and is still cost-efficient when several milligrams of starting material is required to enable the detection of the low-abundance modified peptides.
Dimethyl labeling application in quantitative phosphoproteomics
Phosphorylation is one of the most important and most well studied PTMs as it plays a critical role in the regulation of several cellular processes, including cell cycle, growth, apoptosis, and differentiation. Several approaches have been developed to facilitate the enrichment of low-abundance phosphopeptides, for example, phosphotyrosine immunoprecipitation, TiO2 affinity chromatography, and IMAC [52, 54]. Dimethyl labeling is well suited to large-scale quantitative phosphoproteomics as it can be easily incorporated with any kind of phosphoprotein or phosphopeptide enrichment approach even when starting with milligrams of material (Table 2). As an illustrative example, we describe below how dimethyl labeling was incorporated in our laboratory with two important enrichment techniques in quantitative phosphoproteomics studies. We give examples for the targeted analysis of tyrosine phosphorylation using phosphotyrosine immunoprecipitation and the more global analysis of protein phosphorylation using SCX in combination with TiO2 affinity chromatography to profile differential phosphorylation events in stem cells following stimulation leading to differentiation [27, 55].
Examining the self-renewal process in human embryonic stem cells
Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) exhibit two exceptional properties, which are the ability to self-renew and the ability to differentiate into all cell types of the human body [56]. We were interested in how hESCs self-renew and maintain their undifferentiated state. Self-renewal of hESCs is regulated by several factors; one of them is fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 2. FGFs execute their biological actions by activating cell surface FGF receptors, which are members of the receptor tyrosine kinase family, resulting in activation of further downstream signaling pathways, including the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3-K) pathways. To understand the role of FGF signaling in hESCs, we performed two large-scale, targeted, quantitative phosphoproteomics experiments to investigate phosphorylation events following FGF-2 stimulation [27, 55].
Since FGF-2 signaling is initiated via receptor tyrosine kinases, we initially performed an analysis of the early tyrosine phosphorylation events following FGF-2 stimulation. We treated hESCs with FGF-2 for 0, 5, and 15 min. As tyrosine phosphorylation is less frequent in cells compared with serine and threonine phosphorylation, 6 mg lysate from each time point was digested and dimethyl-labeled, whereby the nonstimulated hESCs (0 min) were labeled with light dimethyl labels, the 5-min-stimulated hESCs were labeled with intermediate-mass labels, and the 15-min-stimulated hESCs were labeled with heavy labels. The differentially labeled samples were mixed 1:1:1 based on the total peptide amount determined by running an aliquot of the labeled samples in a regular LC-MS experiment and comparing the overall peptide signal intensity and the signal intensity of the samples enriched for tyrosine-phosphorylated peptides by phosphotyrosine immunoprecipitation. The enriched peptides were then analyzed by LC-MS/MS (Fig. 3). We identified and quantifies 300 unique tyrosine phosphorylation sites. As expected, an increase in tyrosine phosphorylation of all FGF receptors and their canonical downstream effectors (e.g., MAPK and PI3-K) was identified. Interestingly, a large number of proteins not directly involved in the canonical FGF pathway, especially Src substrates, were observed with increased phosphorylation upon FGF-2 stimulation, although only relatively small increases were observed for their Src family kinases. Moreover, cluster analysis revealed that the identified Src substrates had the same tyrosine phosphorylation profiles in response to FGF-2 as identified in all FGF receptors and their downstream targets. Our finding suggested for the first time the importance of Src kinase signaling in maintaining the undifferentiated hSEC phenotype, which could be confirmed by our Src kinase inhibition assays [57]. From a technical point of view, it is interesting to note that in these experiments we labeled 6 mg of material; however, we only analyzes nanogram amounts of material acquired following phosphotyrosine immunoprecipitation, discarding the rest to waste. Similar experiments have been reported by Wolf-Yadlin et al. [58], who used iTRAQ labeling for the quantitative readout. Compared with dimethyl labeling, this increases the cost of the experiment tremendously; moreover, the iTRAQ label may have a negative effect on the efficiency of the phosphotyrosine immunoprecipitation. In a comparison between iTRAQ and dimethyl labeling, Boersema et al. [27] reported quantitatively identical results following EGF stimulation in HeLa cells, indicating that both methods can perform equally well.
To further understand the role of FGF-2 on hESCs, we extended our tyrosine phosphorylation profiling by performing a more global phosphoproteomics study under identical biological conditions aiming to include now also the vast majority of phosphorylations in cells that are on serine and threonine residues, albeit at the expense of detecting many tyrosine phosphorylations [55]. We performed a multidimensional strategy combining SCX chromatography to reduce sample complexity and by TiO2 affinity chromatography off-line to enrich the samples for phosphopeptides, and dimethyl labeling for quantification. The hESCs were stimulated with FGF-2 for 0, 1, 5, 15, and 60 min. Then, 1.5 mg lysate from each time point was digested and dimethyl-labeled, whereby for the first group, the nonstimulated hESCs (0 min) were labeled with light dimethyl labels, the 5-min stimulated hESCs were labeled with intermediate-mass labels, and the 15-min-stimulated hESCs were labeled with heavy labels. For the second group, the 1-min stimulated hESCs were labeled with light dimethyl labels, the 15-min-stimulated hESCs were labeled with intermediate-mass labels, and the 60-min-stimulated hESCs were labeled with heavy labels. Samples from each group were mixed in a 1:1:1 ratio and fractionated by SCX. The SCX fractions abundant in phosphopeptides were further enriched for phosphopeptides with TiO2 affinity chromatography off-line and analyzed by LC-MS/MS (Fig. 3). A total of 1,653 phosphopeptides corresponding to 810 proteins were quantified. In agreement with our study mentioned above, a rapid increase in phosphorylation was observed in all FGF receptors as well as downstream targets of the MAPK, PI3K, and Src family members. Complementing our previous analysis, we observed in this study that FGF-2 also regulated several other downstream signaling pathways, including Wnt and actin/cytoskeletal pathways. The observed changes in phosphorylation emphasized that FGF-2 may directly regulate the pluripotency transcription factors to maintain the undifferentiated phenotype [55].
Technically similar applications of dimethyl labeling combined with a wide range of phosphoenrichment techniques are listed in Table 2. To end this section, we highlight our recent study of a novel phosphopeptide enrichment approach based on a combination of low-pH SCX and Ti4+-IMAC. We have shown that the Ti4+ method can boost the number of phosphopeptides identified in dimethyl-labeling-based quantitative proteomics. We identified more than 9,000 unique phosphorylation sites from a single experiment consisting of only 400 μg triple-dimethyl-labeled lysate [25].
Overall, all these studies combined reveal that stable isotope dimethyl labeling provides a versatile platform for quantitative phosphoproteomics studies as it can be incorporated in every workflow chosen to perform enrichment of phosphopeptides and phosphoproteins and can be applied to every kind of cell, tissue, or organelle.
Dimethyl labeling applications in quantitative glycoproteomics
Glycosylation is one of the most frequent PTMs occurring often on cell-surface and extracellular proteins. The two main forms are O-linked oligosaccharides bound to serine or threonine residues and N-linked glycans attached to asparagine residues. Changes in the glycosylation profile have been reported to be associated with several diseases; therefore, quantitative glycoproteomics is rapidly gaining interest. Several enrichment strategies have been developed for the study of glycosylated proteins. The two major approaches are lectin affinity and hydrazide chemistry, which are mostly applied for the analysis of N-linked glycoproteins [59, 60]. Alternative enrichment methods include HILIC and TiO2 affinity chromatography for glycoproteins and peptides containing sialic acids [61, 62]. Stable isotope labeling combined with different glycoprotein enrichment approaches has been utilized in several quantitative glycoproteomics studies [59, 60]. Dimethyl labeling is well suited for quantitative glycoproteomics study of both N-linked and O-linked glycosylation as it can be combined with all the above-mentioned enrichment strategie,s as described in more detail next.
Quantitatitive N-linked glycoproteomics profiling in cardiac remodeling
Parker et al. [63] described a quantitative glycoproteomics strategy to profile the myocardial N-glycoproteome during cardiac modeling after ischemia/reperfusion injury in a rat model. Their initial profiling used iTRAQ for quantification with 100 μg starting material. The starting material was sufficient for only one enrichment step and only 80 glycopeptides could be quantified with altered abundance. To increase the coverage of the glycopeptides, they performed dimethyl labeling for quantification so the amounts of starting material could be increased and therefore complementary glycopeptide enrichment methods based on different chemical properties of the attached glycans could be performed. Membrane proteins (2 mg) from control heart and those from hearts subjected to ischemia/reperfusion injury were digested and dimethyl-labeled. The labeled peptides were mixed and subjected to three different enrichment methods, TiO2 affinity chromatography for sialic acid containing glycopeptides, ZIC-HILIC for neutral glycopeptides, and hydrazide capture. A total of 590 glycosylation sites were quantified and 123 glycopeptides were identified with abundance changes. Of these, 46 glycopeptides were in agreement with those obtained by the iTRAQ approach, whereas dimethyl labeling added another 62 glycopeptides with altered abundance. These glycosylation sites mapped to proteins from the three phases of cardiac remodeling ranging from extracellular matrix proteins and cell-surface glycoproteins to proteins associated with sarcolemma and electrochemical signaling and solute transport [63].
Dimethyl labeling can also be combined with lectin affinity chromatography enrichment. Wei et al. [64] established an analytical platform that can enrich, identify, and quantify glycoproteins in complex plasma samples for biomarker discovery in prion disease. Blood from mice inoculated with prion protein was collected 108, 158, and 198 days after inoculation. Plasma samples from seven control and seven infected mice from each time point were pooled and glycoproteins were enriched by lectin affinity chromatography. Glycoproteins were digested, differentially dimethyl labeled, and analyzed by two-dimensional reversed-phase–reversed-phase LC-MS/MS. Dimethyl labeling revealed around 100 proteins with altered expression in the plasma collected from prion-inoculated animals. As a consequence of the data, they proposed serum amyloid P-component protein as a potential biomarker for the progression of prion disease [64].
Probing the dynamics of O-linked N-acetylglucosamine glycosylation in the brain
O-linked N-acetylglucosamine (O-GlcNAc) is an intracellular, reversible form of O-glycosylation that shares many features with phosphorylation. Khidekel et al. [65] have reported a new quantitative proteomics strategy for monitoring the dynamics of O-GlcNAc glycosylation, for which the method is termed quantitative isotopic and chemoenzymatic tagging (QUIC-Tag). The method combines selective, chemoenzymatic tagging of O-GlcNAc proteins, which allows selective biotinylation and avidin chromatography purification of the proteins using dimethyl labeling for quantification (Fig. 4). The application of the QUIC-Tag method was shown in the study of O-GlcNAc glycosylation in neurons and brain where the modification is abundant. The QUIC-Tag method was used to probe global glycosylation changes as a response to extracellular stimuli. Interestingly, O-GlcNAc modification was identified in several proteins essential for synaptic function in neurons, suggesting a role of the modification in mediating the communication between neurons. Their data also showed for the first time that besides glucose concentration, extracellular stimuli can induce and regulate O-GlcNAc glycosylation in the brain [65].
Dimethyl labeling for identification of proteolytic products and natural N- and C-termini
Endogenous proteolysis is a major, irreversible PTM that can modify protein activity, function, localization, and life span. Proteolysis generates proteins with neo-N- and/or neo-C-termini not originally present in the initially translated polypeptides. Proteases are one of the largest enzyme classes in mammalian organisms. However, for half of the proteases, substrates are relatively unknown and for the other half annotation of the substrate degradome is incomplete.
The group of Overall [66–71] has developed two of the most powerful quantitative proteomics approaches for labeling and isolating N- or C-terminal peptides, referred to as terminal amine isotopic labeling of substrates (TAILS) and C-terminal amine-based isotope labeling of substrates (C-TAILS). The approaches are designed for comparison of protease-treated and control untreated proteomes as well as for comparison of proteolytic processing in different samples, as shown in Fig. 5a. The two methods combine an enrichment step for protein termini with stable isotope labeling, mostly with dimethyl labeling for quantification (1) to assign specific cleavage events to the protease of interest and (2) to distinguish the protease-induced proteolytic products from background proteolytic products in a control sample.
TAILS was developed to enrich, identify, and quantify both natural and proteolysis-generated N-termini. As a critical step, at the protein level, dimethyl labeling is incorporated to modify natural and proteolysis-generated N-terminal and lysine amines, thus protecting the modified amines from trypsin and simultaneously labeling the proteins. As lysine dimethylation prevents trypsin cleavage of lysine, the resulting generation of longer peptides by trypsin aids the identification of the relatively short N-terminal peptides. After tryptic digestion, negative enrichment was performed by using an amine–reactive, aldehyde-derivatized polymer to capture internal trypsin-generated N-termini in order to separate them from protected N-termini (Fig. 5b). Quantification of the heavy and light ratios of the peptides together with stringent bioinformatics search criteria enables discrimination of protease-cleaved neo-N-terminal peptides from the background proteolysis products; therefore, substrate repertoire of a specific protease can be identified and their accurate cleavage sites can be assigned [66–68].
TAILS has been demonstrated in the study of broad-specificity matrix metalloproteinase 2 cleavage sites and substrates in mouse fibroblast secretomes. TAILS identified more than 200 cleavage sites from more than 100 substrates. TAILS has also been used to study mouse inflammatory bronchoalveolar fluid and revealed the substrates of the poorly defined breast cancer protease matrix metalloproteinase 11 [66]. Applications of TAILS have also been shown by Tholen et al. [72], who were interested in the contribution of the endolysosomal cysteine endoprotease, cathepsin L (Cstl) to extracellular proteolysis of mouse embryonic fibroblasts. TAILS was used to determine changes in the cleavage pattern of secreted proteins between wild-type and Cstl knockout mouse embryonic fibroblasts and to identify the Cstl-dependent cleavage sites. In total, TAILS identified more than 1,500 protein termini, with this number being reduced by more than 300 by Cstl deficiency.
A similar strategy was applied to study the protein C-terminome [69, 70]. C-TAILS is currently one of the few methods that allow proteome-wide enrichment of C-terminal peptides. C-TAILS was developed to enrich, identify, and quantify both natural and proteolysis-generated C-termini. As an additional step to N-terminal TAILS, endogenous and protease-generated neo-C-terminal groups together with aspartate and glutamate side chain carboxyl groups have to be chemically protected at the protein level. Dimethyl labeling is incorporated to label and protect amines at the protein and peptide level. Trypsin digestion yields the natural protein C-terminal peptides and neo-C-terminal peptides, now with protected carboxyl groups. Original C-terminal and neo-C-terminal peptides which lack free carboxyl groups are isolated by negative enrichment [69, 70] (Fig. 5b). A nice application of C-TAILS was reported by Schilling et al. [69], who identified hundreds of C-terminal peptides in the Escherichia coli proteome.
Stable isotope dimethyl labeling applications in interaction proteomics
Rather than individual proteins themselves, protein complexes are the functional units of the cell. Indeed, signal transduction and cellular pathways require protein–protein interactions (PPIs) and the assemblies of proteins into large protein complexes. Therefore, mapping of PPIs and complex components is essential to understand the regulatory mechanisms underlying biological processes. High-throughput yeast two-hybrid screens [73] and affinity purification followed by MS [74] are two major techniques used to study PPIs. A major challenge in using affinity purification for interaction studies is that it is difficult to control/diminish false-positive interactions coming from the complex cellular background, regardless of the bait protein or protocol used. It has been shown that quantitative proteomics can assist in overcoming this problem by performing pull-down and control pull-down experiments in parallel and using incorporation of different stable isotopes to distinguish background proteins (equally abundant in both experiments) from specific interaction partners (absent in the control or at least twofold more abundant in the pull-down). Among the different quantitative proteomics strategies demonstrated in PPI studies, dimethyl labeling has proven to be quite successful in the mapping of PPIs as well as protein–nucleic acid and protein–drug interactions [75–80].
One of the most useful applications of quantitative affinity purification–MS has been the global elucidation of protein interaction networks (PINs) present in a cell or organism [81]. Although, dimethyl labeling is still a relative newcomer in the field, it has been demonstrated as a tool to construct PINs in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-252) [77]. A total of 406 MRSA proteins were cloned and expressed as glutathione S-transferase (GST)-fusion proteins and used as bait in high-throughput pull-down experiments, with each pull-down having an internal negative pull-down represented by the GST control. Dimethyl labeling was incorporated into each pull-down pair to distinguish specific interactors from the nonspecific background by quantifying the amount of interactor bound to the GST-fused bait protein relative to the amount in the control GST-alone pull-down. Interactors with at least a twofold enrichment were considered bona fide. In total, 13,219 pairwise interactions involving 608 MRSA proteins were reconstructed into an MRSA PIN, which can serve as an important basis for investigation of S. aureus biology and potential functions for previously uncharacterized proteins. Several proteins were identified as central hubs in the PIN, indicating that they may be essential for network integrity and stability, and thus essential and critical for MRSA viability and growth. The authors also suggested that some of the highly connected proteins can become prospective antimicrobial drug targets. Incorporating dimethyl labeling can be used to quantitatively assess the validity of the interaction and thus also pinpoint false-positive interactions, which is extremely difficult for the classic yeast two-hybrid screen approach.
The dimethyl labeling approach outlined above to study PINs can be used to study any protein interaction as long as a bait and a proper control are available. Cheng et al. [76]developed what they termed a quantitative nanoproteomics approach for charting protein complexes (QnanoPX) using gold nanoparticles as a probe for affinity purification. The approach was applied to globally map the transcriptional activation complex of estrogen response element (ERE) in MCF-7 cells. ERE is regulated by the estrogen receptor. When activated by 17β-estradiol (E2), the estrogen receptor is translocated to the nucleus, where it binds to ERE, and recruits other proteins to the complex to subsequently promote transcription of the target genes. To identify ER–ERE complex components, gold nanoparticle probes were functionalized with consensus sequences of 13-bp ERE (positive probes) and control negative probes were functionalized without ERE. The pull-downs by the negative and the positive probes were differentially labeled to distinguish genuine ER–ERE complex components from nonspecific binding proteins. The same strategy was then extended to investigate E2-induced changes in protein expression after 24 h E2 treatment [76]. A pull-down in cells without E2 treatment was used as a control. Among the proteins affected by E2 treatment, they detected several proteins involved in transcriptional regulation by ER, for instance, c-Myc, suggesting it may play a significant role in E2-mediated transcription, which was further substantiated by western blot data. Both of these studies show powerful applications of dimethyl labeling to unravel biological pathways by tackling the generic problems of nonspecific binding and false positives in protein interaction studies.
Stable isotope dimethyl labeling can also be incorporated in the interaction study of small immobilized molecules with proteins from a lysate to screen for drug targets and off-target binding, often referred to as chemical proteomics [82]. We were interested in probing the interactome of cyclic GMP specific phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors that resemble sildenafil and vardenafil. A quantitative chemical proteomics approach was performed to investigate whether proteins other than the clinically known target PDE5 could also interact with these drug analogues [78]. We found that only three proteins displayed selective affinity for the PDE5 inhibitor, of which two were isoforms of PDE5, and only one new binder was observed, namely, prenyl-binding protein (PrBP). Follow-up experiments confirmed the specific interaction between the PDE5 inhibitor analogues and prenyl-binding protein, albeit in the low micromolar range, much weaker than the interaction between the drug and PDE5, which is in lower nanomolar range [78]. This approach was also used to assess the relative binding of chemically slightly different PDE5 inhibitors. Their selectivity profiles were determined by differences in abundances of the proteins retrieved by PDE5 inhibitor pull-downs. Our data indicated that slight chemical modifications of the analogues can bias the inhibitor selectivity from PDE5 toward other interacting proteins [80].
Over the past few years we have put significant effort into establishing a cyclic AMP (cAMP)-based quantitative chemical proteomics strategy that combines cAMP-based affinity chromatography with dimethyl labeling and MS to study cAMP signaling pathway [36, 75, 83]. cAMP regulates cellular functions primarily by activating cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA), which itself is compartmentalized by A-kinase anchoring proteins (AKAPs) to ensure specificity of cAMP signaling events in space and time [83, 84]. The affinities of PKA for binding to AKAPs differ significantly for the two main classes of PKA-R isoforms, PKA-RI and PKA-RII; therefore, the AKAP family can be roughly divided into three groups on the basis of which the PKA-R subunits bind. Our first attempt combined cAMP-based chemical proteomics with dimethyl labeling to study and compare the properties of three differently immobilized cAMP analogues, termed C2, C8, and C8-OCH3 (Fig. 6a). These agarose beads were used for enrichment, isolation, and detection of PKA and AKAPs directly from a crude lysate of cells or tissue (Fig. 6b). We found that both PKA-R isoforms were captured equally well by the C8 and C2 beads as the dimethyl ratios were close to 1. More interestingly, for the PKA-RI isoform, the C8 to C8-OCH3 ratio was close to 1, but for PKA-RII this ratio was on average 5, indicating that C8 beads have substantially higher affinity for PKA-RII than C8-OCH3 beads (Fig. 6c). These PKA-RI/PKA-RII ratios are also reflected in the observed ratios for the AKAPs binding to the R subunits (Fig. 6c). The data indicated that by combining dimethyl labeling with C8 and C8-OCH3 pull-downs, the differences in PKA-R isoform affinity of the two analogues can be used as a discriminating factor to determine PKA-R/AKAP binding specificity. When applying this strategy to rat heart and spleen tissue, we deduced the specificity of SPHKAP, a novel AKAP. This revealed its unique preference for PKA-RI (Fig. 6d; C8-OCH3/C8 ratios follow those of PKA-RI), which was later confirmed by in vitro data. These data led to the identification of the first PKA-RI-specific AKAP ever found in mammals [79, 85].
General conclusions
Presently, there are many alternative ways to perform quantitative proteomics. The most robust forms require the use of stable isotope labeling. These stable isotopes can be incorporated either metabolically using popular methods such as 15N labeling [86] or SILAC [7, 8] or chemically using, for instance, ICAT [10], iTRAQ/tandem mass tags [11, 12], or 18O labeling [87, 88]. To this toolbox, stable isotope dimethyl labeling has recently been added. Although it is clear that all these different methods have their strengths and weaknesses, the applications described in this review clearly show that stable isotope dimethyl labeling provides a very versatile method. The weakness of, but not unique to, stable isotope dimethyl labeling is that it cannot be easily multiplexed beyond four channels. Moreover, as quantification is based on MS spectra, and not on MS/MS fragments as in iTRAQ/tandem mass tags, overlapping ion signals originating from other peptides with similar masses can hamper quantification. In summary, the strengths of stable isotope dimethyl labeling are that its low cost and high efficiency allow application on both large (milligram) and also small (submicrogram) amounts of protein input. In addition, it can be used in both off-line and online methods and it can achieve equal depth in protein quantitation as the alternative methods mentioned above. Another advantage of this chemical labeling strategy is that it can be applied to any sample, including those originating from cells, tissue, body fluids, and whole organisms. Therefore, we think the future of stable isotope dimethyl labeling in quantitative proteomics is bright.
References
Aebersold R, Mann M (2003) Mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature 422(6928):198–207
Cox J, Mann M (2011) Quantitative, high-resolution proteomics for data-driven systems biology. Annu Rev Biochem 80(1):273–299
Mallick P, Kuster B (2010) Proteomics: a pragmatic perspective. Nat Biotechnol 28(7):695–709
Bantscheff M, Schirle M, Sweetman G, Rick J, Kuster B (2007) Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: a critical review. Anal Bioanal Chem 389(4):1017–1031
Julka S, Regnier F (2004) Quantification in proteomics through stable isotope coding: a review. J Proteome Res 3(3):350–363
Heck AJR, Krijgsveld J (2004) Mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics. Expert Rev Proteomics 1(3):317–326
Ong S-E, Blagoev B, Kratchmarova I, Kristensen DB, Steen H, Pandey A, Mann M (2002) Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture, SILAC, as a simple and accurate approach to expression proteomics. Mol Cell Proteomics 1(5):376–386
Mann M (2006) Functional and quantitative proteomics using SILAC. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(12):952–958
Gouw JW, Krijgsveld J, Heck AJR (2010) Quantitative proteomics by metabolic labeling of model organisms. Mol Cell Proteomics 9(1):11–24
Gygi SP, Rist B, Gerber SA, Turecek F, Gelb MH, Aebersold R (1999) Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags. Nat Biotechnol 17(10):994–999
Ross PL, Huang YN, Marchese JN, Williamson B, Parker K, Hattan S, Khainovski N, Pillai S, Dey S, Daniels S, Purkayastha S, Juhasz P, Martin S, Bartlet-Jones M, He F, Jacobson A, Pappin DJ (2004) Multiplexed protein quantitation in saccharomyces cerevisiae using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents. Mol Cell Proteomics 3(12):1154–1169
Thompson A, Schäfer J, Kuhn K, Kienle S, Schwarz J, Schmidt G, Neumann T, Hamon C (2003) Tandem mass tags: a novel quantification strategy for comparative analysis of complex protein mixtures by MS/MS. Anal Chem 75(8):1895–1904
Boersema PJ, Aye TT, van Veen TAB, Heck AJR, Mohammed S (2008) Triplex protein quantification based on stable isotope labeling by peptide dimethylation applied to cell and tissue lysates. Proteomics 8(22):4624–4632
Jentoft N, Dearborn DG (1979) Labeling of proteins by reductive methylation using sodium cyanoborohydride. J Biol Chem 254(11):4359–4365
Hsu J-L, Huang S-Y, Chow N-H, Chen S-H (2003) Stable-isotope dimethyl labeling for quantitative proteomics. Anal Chem 75(24):6843–6852
Hsu J-L, Huang S-Y, Shiea J-T, Huang W-Y, Chen S-H (2005) Beyond quantitative proteomics: signal enhancement of the a1 ion as a mass tag for peptide sequencing using dimethyl labeling. J Proteome Res 4(1):101–108
Ji C, Guo N, Li L (2005) Differential dimethyl labeling of N-termini of peptides after guanidination for proteome analysis. J Proteome Res 4(6):2099–2108
Hsu J-L, Huang S-Y, Chen S-H (2006) Dimethyl multiplexed labeling combined with microcolumn separation and MS analysis for time course study in proteomics. Electrophoresis 27(18):3652–3660
Cappadona S, Muñoz J, Spee WPE, Low TY, Mohammed S, van Breukelen B, Heck AJR (2011) Deconvolution of overlapping isotopic clusters improves quantification of stable isotope–labeled peptides. J Proteomics 74(10):2204–2209
Guo K, Ji C, Li L (2007) Stable-isotope dimethylation labeling combined with LC−ESI MS for quantification of amine-containing metabolites in biological samples. Anal Chem 79(22):8631–8638
Di Palma S, Raijmakers R, Heck AJR, Mohammed S (2011) Evaluation of the deuterium isotope effect in zwitterionic hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography separations for implementation in a quantitative proteomic approach. Anal Chem 83(21):8352–8356
Ji CJ, Li LJ, Gebre M, Pasdar M, Li L (2005) Identification and quantification of differentially expressed proteins in E-cadherin deficient SCC9 cells and SCC9 transfectants expressing E-cadherin by dimethyl isotope labeling, LC-MALDI MS and MS/MS. J Proteome Res 4(4):1419–1426
Ji C, Li L (2005) Quantitative proteome analysis using differential stable isotopic labeling and microbore LC−MALDI MS and MS/MS. J Proteome Res 4(3):734–742
Huang SY, Tsai ML, Wu CJ, Hsu JL, Ho SH, Chen SH (2006) Quantitation of protein phosphorylation in pregnant rat uteri using stable isotope dimethyl labeling coupled with IMAC. Proteomics 6(6):1722–1734
Zhou H, Low TY, Hennrich ML, van der Toorn H, Schwend T, Zou H, Mohammed S, Heck AJR (2011) Enhancing the identification of phosphopeptides from putative basophilic kinase substrates using Ti (IV) based IMAC enrichment. Mol Cell Proteomics. doi:10.1074/mcp.M110.006452
Lemeer S, Jopling C, Gouw J, Mohammed S, Heck AJR, Slijper M, den Hertog J (2008) Comparative phosphoproteomics of zebrafish Fyn/Yes morpholino knockdown embryos. Mol Cell Proteomics 7(11):2176–2187
Boersema PJ, Foong LY, Ding VMY, Lemeer S, van Breukelen B, Philp R, Boekhorst J, Snel B, den Hertog J, Choo ABH, Heck AJR (2010) In-depth qualitative and quantitative profiling of tyrosine phosphorylation using a combination of phosphopeptide immunoaffinity purification and stable isotope dimethyl labeling. Mol Cell Proteomics 9(1):84–99
Raijmakers R, Berkers CR, de Jong A, Ovaa H, Heck AJR, Mohammed S (2008) Automated online sequential isotope labeling for protein quantitation applied to proteasome tissue-specific diversity. Mol Cell Proteomics 7(9):1755–1762
Raijmakers R, Heck AJR, Mohammed S (2009) Assessing biological variation and protein processing in primary human leukocytes by automated multiplex stable isotope labeling coupled to 2 dimensional peptide separation. Mol Biosyst 5(9):992–1003
Wang F, Chen R, Zhu J, Sun D, Song C, Wu Y, Ye M, Wang L, Zou H (2010) A fully automated system with online sample loading, isotope dimethyl labeling and multidimensional separation for high-throughput quantitative proteome analysis. Anal Chem 82(7):3007–3015
Boersema PJ, Raijmakers R, Lemeer S, Mohammed S, Heck AJR (2009) Multiplex peptide stable isotope dimethyl labeling for quantitative proteomics. Nat Protoc 4(4):484–494
Hsu J-L, Chen S-H, Li D-T, Shi F-K (2007) Enhanced a1 fragmentation for dimethylated proteins and its applications for N-terminal identification and comparative protein quantitation. J Proteome Res 6(6):2376–2383
Shen P-T, Hsu J-L, Chen S-H (2007) Dimethyl isotope-coded affinity selection for the analysis of free and blocked N-termini of proteins using LC−MS/MS. Anal Chem 79(24):9520–9530
Taouatas N, Heck AJR, Mohammed S (2010) Evaluation of metalloendopeptidase Lys-N protease performance under different sample handling conditions. J Proteome Res 9(8):4282–4288
Hennrich M, Mohammed S, Altelaar A, Heck A (2010) Dimethyl isotope labeling assisted de novo peptide sequencing. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 21(12):1957–1965
Kovanich D, Aye TT, Heck AJR, Scholten A (2012) Probing the specificity of protein–protein interactions by quantitative chemical proteomics in: chemical proteomics. Methods Mol Biol 803:167–181
Cappadona S, Baker P, Cutillas P, Heck A, van Breukelen B (2012) Amino Acids (in press)
Hansen KC, Schmitt-Ulms G, Chalkley RJ, Hirsch J, Baldwin MA, Burlingame AL (2003) Mass spectrometric analysis of protein mixtures at low levels using cleavable 13C-isotope-coded affinity tag and multidimensional chromatography. Mol Cell Proteomics 2(5):299–314
Chalkley RJ, Baker PR, Huang L, Hansen KC, Allen NP, Rexach M, Burlingame AL (2005) Comprehensive analysis of a multidimensional liquid chromatography mass spectrometry dataset acquired on a quadrupole selecting, quadrupole collision cell, time-of-flight mass spectrometer. Mol Cell Proteomics 4(8):1194–1204
Ji C, Zhang N, Damaraju S, Damaraju VL, Carpenter P, Cass CE, Li L (2007) A study of reproducibility of guanidination–dimethylation labeling and liquid chromatography matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry for relative proteome quantification. Anal Chim Acta 585(2):219–226
Mortensen P, Gouw JW, Olsen JV, Ong S-E, Rigbolt KTG, Bunkenborg J, Cox J, Foster LJ, Heck AJR, Blagoev B, Andersen JS, Mann M (2009) MSQuant, an open source platform for mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics. J Proteome Res 9(1):393–403
Cox J, Mann M (2008) MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol 26(12):1367–1372
Khan Z, Bloom JS, Garcia BA, Singh M, Kruglyak L (2009) Protein quantification across hundreds of experimental conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(37):15544–15548
Han DK, Eng J, Zhou H, Aebersold R (2001) Quantitative profiling of differentiation-induced microsomal proteins using isotope-coded affinity tags and mass spectrometry. Nat Biotechnol 19(10):946–951
Deutsch EW, Mendoza L, Shteynberg D, Farrah T, Lam H, Tasman N, Sun Z, Nilsson E, Pratt B, Prazen B, Eng JK, Martin DB, Nesvizhskii AI, Aebersold R (2010) A guided tour of the trans-proteomic pipeline. Proteomics 10(6):1150–1159
Colaert N, Vandekerckhove J, Martens L, Gevaert K (2011) A case study on the comparison of different software tools for automated quantification of peptide. in: gel free proteomics: methods and protocols, vol 753. Humana, Totowa, pp 373–398
van Breukelen B, van den Toorn HWP, Drugan MM, Heck AJR (2009) StatQuant: a post-quantification analysis toolbox for improving quantitative mass spectrometry. Bioinformatics 25(11):1472–1473
Munoz J, Low TY, Kok YJ, Chin A, Frese CK, Ding V, Choo A, Heck AJR (2011) The quantitative proteomes of human-induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Mol Syst Biol 7:550
Phanstiel DH, Brumbaugh J, Wenger CD, Tian S, Probasco MD, Bailey DJ, Swaney DL, Tervo MA, Bolin JM, Ruotti V, Stewart R, Thomson JA, Coon JJ (2011) Proteomic and phosphoproteomic comparison of human ES and iPS cells. Nat Methods 8(10):821–827
Parker R, Melathopoulos AP, White R, Pernal SF, Guarna MM, Foster LJ (2010) Ecological adaptation of diverse honey bee (Apis mellifera) populations. PLoS One 5(6):e11096
Grimsrud PA, Swaney DL, Wenger CD, Beauchene NA, Coon JJ (2010) Phosphoproteomics for the masses. ACS Chem Biol 5(1):105–119
Lemeer S, Heck AJR (2009) The phosphoproteomics data explosion. Curr Opin Chem Biol 13(4):414–420
Macek B, Mann M, Olsen JV (2009) Global and site-specific quantitative phosphoproteomics: principles and applications. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 49(1):199–221
Leitner A, Sturm M, Lindner W (2011) Tools for analyzing the phosphoproteome and other phosphorylated biomolecules: a review. Anal Chim Acta 703(1):19–30
Zoumaro-Djayoon AD, Ding V, Foong L-Y, Choo A, Heck AJR, Muñoz J (2011) Investigating the role of FGF-2 in stem cell maintenance by global phosphoproteomics profiling. Proteomics 11(20):3962–3971
Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, Waknitz MA, Swiergiel JJ, Marshall VS, Jones JM (1998) Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282(5391):1145–1147
Ding VMY, Boersema PJ, Foong LY, Preisinger C, Koh G, Natarajan S, Lee D-Y, Boekhorst J, Snel B, Lemeer S, Heck AJR, Choo A (2011) Tyrosine phosphorylation profiling in FGF-2 stimulated human embryonic stem cells. PLoS One 6(3):e17538
Wolf-Yadlin A, Hautaniemi S, Lauffenburger DA, White FM (2007) Multiple reaction monitoring for robust quantitative proteomic analysis of cellular signaling networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(14):5860–5865
Kaji H, Yamauchi Y, Takahashi N, Isobe T (2007) Mass spectrometric identification of N-linked glycopeptides using lectin-mediated affinity capture and glycosylation site-specific stable isotope tagging. Nat Protoc 1(6):3019–3027
Zhang H, Li X-j, Martin DB, Aebersold R (2003) Identification and quantification of N-linked glycoproteins using hydrazide chemistry, stable isotope labeling and mass spectrometry. Nat Biotechnol 21(6):660–666
Hägglund P, Bunkenborg J, Elortza F, Jensen ON, Roepstorff P (2004) A new strategy for identification of N-glycosylated proteins and unambiguous assignment of their glycosylation sites using HILIC enrichment and partial deglycosylation. J Proteome Res 3(3):556–566
Larsen MR, Jensen SS, Jakobsen LA, Heegaard NHH (2007) Exploring the sialiome using titanium dioxide chromatography and mass spectrometry. Mol Cell Proteomics 6(10):1778–1787
Parker BL, Palmisano G, Edwards AVG, White MY, Engholm-Keller K, Lee A, Scott NE, Kolarich D, Hambly BD, Packer NH, Larsen MR, Cordwell SJ (2011) Quantitative N-linked glycoproteomics of myocardial ischemia and reperfusion injury reveals early remodeling in the extracellular environment. Mol Cell Proteomics. doi:10.1074/mcp.M110.006833
Wei X, Herbst A, Ma D, Aiken J, Li L (2011) A quantitative proteomic approach to prion disease biomarker research: delving into the glycoproteome. J Proteome Res 10(6):2687–2702
Khidekel N, Ficarro SB, Clark PM, Bryan MC, Swaney DL, Rexach JE, Sun YE, Coon JJ, Peters EC, Hsieh-Wilson LC (2007) Probing the dynamics of O-GlcNAc glycosylation in the brain using quantitative proteomics. Nat Chem Biol 3(6):339–348
Kleifeld O, Doucet A, auf dem Keller U, Prudova A, Schilling O, Kainthan RK, Starr AE, Foster LJ, Kizhakkedathu JN, Overall CM (2010) Isotopic labeling of terminal amines in complex samples identifies protein N-termini and protease cleavage products. Nat Biotechnol 28(3):281–288
Kleifeld O, Doucet A, Prudova A, auf dem Keller U, Gioia M, Kizhakkedathu JN, Overall CM (2011) Identifying and quantifying proteolytic events and the natural N terminome by terminal amine isotopic labeling of substrates. Nat Protoc 6(10):1578–1611
Doucet A, Kleifeld O, Kizhakkedathu JN, Overall CM (2011) Identification of proteolytic products and natural protein N-Termini by Terminal Amine Isotopic Labeling of Substrates (TAILS) In: gel-free proteomics. methods in molecular biology, vol 753. Humana, Totowa, pp 273–287
Schilling O, Barré O, Huesgen PF, Overall CM (2010) Proteome-wide analysis of protein carboxy termini: C terminomics. Nat Methods 7(7):508–511
Schilling O, Huesgen PF, Barré O, Overall CM (2011) Identification and relative quantification of native and proteolytically generated protein C-termini from complex proteomes: C-terminome analysis. in: network biology: methods and applications. Methods Mol Biol 781:59–69
Huesgen PF, Overall CM (2011) Physiol Plant 145(1):5–17
Tholen S, Biniossek ML, Geßler A-L, Müller S, Weißer J, Kizhakkedathu JN, Reinheckel T, Schilling O (2011) Contribution of cathepsin L to secretome composition and cleavage pattern of mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Biol Chem 392(11):961–971
Simonis N, Rual J-F, Carvunis A-R, Tasan M, Lemmens I, Hirozane-Kishikawa T, Hao T, Sahalie J, Venkatesan K, Gebreab F, Cevik S, Klitgord N, Fan C, Braun P, Li N, Ayivi-Guedehoussou N, Dann E, Bertin N, Szeto D, Dricot A, Yildirim M, Lin C, de Smet A-S, Kao H-L, Simon C, Smolyar A, Ahn J, Tewari M, Boxem M, Milstein S, Yu H, Dreze M, Vandenhaute J, Gunsalus K, Cusick M, Hill D, Tavernier J, Roth F, Vidal M (2008) Empirically controlled mapping of the Caenorhabditis elegans protein-protein interactome network. Nat Methods 6(1):47–54
Gingras A-C, Gstaiger M, Raught B, Aebersold R (2007) Analysis of protein complexes using mass spectrometry. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8(8):645–654
Aye TT, Mohammed S, van den Toorn HWP, van Veen TAB, van der Heyden MAG, Scholten A, Heck AJR (2009) Selectivity in enrichment of cAMP-dependent protein kinase regulatory Subunits Type I and Type II and their interactors using modified cAMP affinity resins. Mol Cell Proteomics 8(5):1016–1028
Cheng P-C, Chang H-K, Chen S-H (2009) Quantitative nanoproteomics for protein complexes (QNanoPX) related to estrogen transcriptional action. Mol Cell Proteomics 9(2):209–224
Cherkasov A, Hsing M, Zoraghi R, Foster LJ, See RH, Stoynov N, Jiang J, Kaur S, Lian T, Jackson L, Gong H, Swayze R, Amandoron E, Hormozdiari F, Dao P, Sahinalp C, Santos-Filho O, Axerio-Cilies P, Byler K, McMaster WR, Brunham RC, Finlay BB, Reiner NE (2010) Mapping the protein interaction network in methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. J Proteome Res 10(3):1139–1150
Dadvar P, O'Flaherty M, Scholten A, Rumpel K, Heck AJR (2009) A chemical proteomics based enrichment technique targeting the interactome of the PDE5 inhibitor PF-4540124. Mol Biosyst 5(5):472–482
Kovanich D, van der Heyden MAG, Aye TT, van Veen TAB, Heck AJR, Scholten A (2010) Sphingosine kinase interacting protein is an A-kinase anchoring protein specific for Type I cAMP-dependent protein kinase. ChemBioChem 11(7):963–971
Raijmakers R, Dadvar P, Pelletier S, Gouw J, Rumpel K, Heck AJR (2010) Target profiling of a small library of phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors using chemical proteomics. ChemMedChem 5(11):1927–1936
Ewing RM, Chu P, Elisma F, Li H, Taylor P, Climie S, McBroom-Cerajewski L, Robinson MD, O'Connor L, Li M, Taylor R, Dharsee M, Ho Y, Heilbut A, Moore L, Zhang S, Ornatsky O, Bukhman YV, Ethier M, Sheng Y, Vasilescu J, Abu-Farha M, Lambert J-P, Duewel HS, Stewart II, Kuehl B, Hogue K, Colwill K, Gladwish K, Muskat B, Kinach R, Adams S-L, Moran MF, Morin GB, Topaloglou T, Figeys D (2007) Large-scale mapping of human protein-protein interactions by mass spectrometry. Mol Syst Biol 3:89
Bantscheff M, Scholten A, Heck AJR (2009) Revealing promiscuous drug–target interactions by chemical proteomics. Drug Discov Today 14(21–22):1021–1029
Scholten A, Aye TT, Heck AJR (2008) A multi-angular mass spectrometric view at cyclic nucleotide dependent protein kinases: in vivo characterization and structure/function relationships. Mass Spectrom Rev 27(4):331–353
Wong W, Scott JD (2004) AKAP signalling complexes: focal points in space and time. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5(12):959–970
Means CK, Lygren B, Langeberg LK, Jain A, Dixon RE, Vega AL, Gold MG, Petrosyan S, Taylor SS, Murphy AN, Ha T, Santana LF, Tasken K, Scott JD (2011) An entirely specific type I A-kinase anchoring protein that can sequester two molecules of protein kinase A at mitochondria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(48):E1227–E1235
Gouw JW, Tops BBJ, Krijgsveld J (2011) Metabolic labeling of model organisms using heavy nitrogen (15 N). In: gel free proteomics: methods and protocols, methods in molecular biology, vol 753. Humana, Totowa, pp 29–42
Yao X, Freas A, Ramirez J, Demirev PA, Fenselau C (2001) Proteolytic 18O Labeling for comparative proteomics: model studies with two serotypes of adenovirus. Anal Chem 73(13):2836–2842
Bantscheff M, Dümpelfeld B, Kuster B (2004) Femtomol sensitivity post-digest 18O labeling for relative quantification of differential protein complex composition. Rapid Comm Mass Spectrom 18(8):869–876
Kwok MCM, Holopainen JM, Molday LL, Foster LJ, Molday RS (2008) Proteomics of photoreceptor outer segments identifies a subset of SNARE and Rab proteins implicated in membrane vesicle trafficking and fusion. Mol Cell Proteomics 7(6):1053–1066
Kantawong F, Burgess KEV, Jayawardena K, Hart A, Burchmore RJ, Gadegaard N, Oreffo ROC, Dalby MJ (2009) Whole proteome analysis of osteoprogenitor differentiation induced by disordered nanotopography and mediated by ERK signalling. Biomaterials 30(27):4723–4731
Chen S-H, Wang Y-W, Hsu J-L, Chang H-Y, Wang C-Y, Shen P-T, Chiang C-W, Chuang J-J, Tsai H-W, Gu P-W, Chang F-C, Liu H-S, Chow N-H (2010) Nucleophosmin in the pathogenesis of arsenic-related bladder carcinogenesis revealed by quantitative proteomics. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 242(2):126–135
Bleijerveld OB, Brakenhoff RH, Schaaij-Visser TBM, Damen JMA, Altelaar AFM, Heck AJR, Leemans CR, Slijper M (2011) Protein signatures associated with tumor cell dissemination in head and neck cancer. J Proteomics 74(4):558–566
Chan QWT, Mutti NS, Foster LJ, Kocher SD, Amdam GV, Wolschin F (2011) The worker honeybee fat body proteome is extensively remodeled preceding a major life-history transition. PLoS One 6(9):e24794
Huang H-J, Tsai M-L, Chen Y-W, Chen S-H (2011) Quantitative shot-gun proteomics and MS-based activity assay for revealing gender differences in enzyme contents for rat liver microsome. J Proteomics 74(12):2734–2744
Cheng H-L, Huang H-J, Ou B-Y, Chow N-H, Chen Y-W, Tzai T-S, Wu C-J, Chen S-H (2011) Urinary CD14 as a potential biomarker for benign prostatic hyperplasia - discovery by combining MALDI-TOF-based biostatistics and ESI-MS/MS-based stable-isotope labeling. Proteomics Clin Appl 5(3–4):121–132
Lu J, Boeren S, de Vries SC, van Valenberg HJF, Vervoort J, Hettinga K (2011) Filter-aided sample preparation with dimethyl labeling to identify and quantify milk fat globule membrane proteins. J Proteomics 75(1):34–43
Ytterberg AJ, Peltier JB, van Wijk KJ (2006) Protein profiling of plastoglobules in chloroplasts and chromoplasts. A surprising site for differential accumulation of metabolic enzymes. Plant Physiol 140(3):984–997
Murphy JP, Kong F, Pinto DM, Wang-Pruski G (2010) Relative quantitative proteomic analysis reveals wound response proteins correlated with after-cooking darkening. Proteomics 10(23):4258–4269
Wijte D, van Baar BLM, Heck AJR, Altelaar AFM (2011) Probing the proteome response to toluene exposure in the solvent tolerant pseudomonas putida S12. J Proteome Res 10(2):394–403
Tolonen AC, Haas W, Chilaka AC, Aach J, Gygi SP, Church GM (2011) Proteome-wide systems analysis of a cellulosic biofuel-producing microbe. Mol Syst Biol 7:461
Wu C-J, Chen Y-W, Tai J-H, Chen S-H (2011) Quantitative phosphoproteomics studies using stable isotope dimethyl labeling coupled with IMAC-HILIC-nanoLC−MS/MS for estrogen-induced transcriptional regulation. J Proteome Res 10(3):1088–1097
Kozlov SV, Graham ME, Jakob B, Tobias F, Kijas AW, Tanuji M, Chen P, Robinson PJ, Taucher-Scholz G, Suzuki K, So S, Chen D, Lavin MF (2011) Autophosphorylation and ATM Activation: additional sites add to the complexity. J Biol Chem 286(11):9107–9119
Oberprieler NG, Lemeer S, Kalland ME, Torgersen KM, Heck AJR, Tasken K (2010) High-resolution mapping of prostaglandin E(2)-dependent signaling networks identifies a constitutively active PKA signaling node in CD8(+)CD45RO(+) T cells. Blood 116(13):2253–2265
Ortega-Gutierrez S, Leung D, Ficarro S, Peters EC, Cravatt BF (2008) Targeted disruption of the PME-1 gene causes loss of demethylated PP2A and perinatal lethality in mice. PLoS One 3(7):e2468
Hsu J-L, Wang L-Y, Wang S-Y, Lin C-H, Ho K-C, Shi F-K, Chang I-F (2009) Functional phosphoproteomic profiling of phosphorylation sites in membrane fractions of salt-stressed Arabidopsis thaliana. Proteome Sci 7:42
Acknowledgments
We kindly acknowledge all members of the Heck group for their contributions. This work was in part supported by the PRIME-XS project (grant agreement number 262067), funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme, the Netherlands Proteomics Centre, embedded in the Netherlands Genomics Initiative, the Centre for Biomedical Genetics, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) with a VIDI grant (700.10.429), and the Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre. D.K. is funded by Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS) and a Royal Thai Scholarship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Published in the topical issue Quantitative Mass Spectrometry in Proteomics with guest editors Bernhard Kuster and Marcus Bantscheff.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kovanich, D., Cappadona, S., Raijmakers, R. et al. Applications of stable isotope dimethyl labeling in quantitative proteomics. Anal Bioanal Chem 404, 991–1009 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-012-6070-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-012-6070-z