Q&A of Label-Based Protein Quantification
Q1: What is label-based quantitative proteomics?
A1: Label-based quantitative proteomics involves tagging proteins or peptides with chemical or isotopic labels to distinguish different samples during mass spectrometry analysis. This approach enables relative or absolute quantification of protein abundance. Common labeling methods include iTRAQ, TMT, and SILAC.
Q2: What are the differences between SILAC- and iTRAQ/TMT-based protein quantification?
A2:
1. SILAC is a metabolic labeling method used during cell culture, typically supporting 2–3 plex (up to 4+ with NeuCode). Quantification is performed at the MS1 level.
2. iTRAQ is a chemical isobaric labeling method supporting 4–8 plex. Quantification occurs at the MS2 level.
3. TMT is also an isobaric chemical labeling technique, supporting 10–18 plex, suitable for large-scale, high-throughput studies. Quantification is done at the MS2 level.
Q3: What are the advantages of label-based quantitative proteomics compared to label-free approaches?
A3: Label-based proteomics offers higher quantification accuracy and better reproducibility across samples because all samples are mixed and analyzed simultaneously. It also reduces technical variability caused by separate runs and enables multiplexing, allowing multiple samples to be compared in a single MS analysis.
Q4: How do I choose the right label-based quantification method?
A4: It depends on your sample type, experimental scale, and research goals.
1. Use SILAC if you're working with live cells and need accurate quantification at the cellular level. SILAC is ideal for dynamic studies such as time-course experiments or treatment responses, as labeling occurs during cell growth.
2. iTRAQ is suitable for tissue or biofluid samples, offering good sensitivity and reproducibility for medium-throughput studies.
3. TMT also works well with tissue and biofluids and is the preferred choice for high-throughput studies, enabling multiplexing of up to 18 samples per run.
Also consider factors like instrument compatibility, desired multiplexing level, and budget.
Q5: Why is reporter ion quantification performed at the MS² level in iTRAQ/TMT experiments instead of MS¹?
A5: In iTRAQ and TMT experiments, all labeled peptides are isobaric—they have identical masses at the MS¹ level and co-elute during chromatography. Therefore, they cannot be distinguished in MS¹ scans. Upon fragmentation in MS², each label releases a unique reporter ion with a distinct m/z, allowing accurate quantification of each sample based on the intensity of these reporter ions.
Q6: Can label-based quantitative proteomics be used for absolute quantification?
A6: Yes, label-based quantitative proteomics can be used for absolute quantification, but it requires the use of known concentrations of standard peptides or proteins for calibration. In this method, a standard curve is generated by spiking in synthetic peptides or proteins with known concentrations. By comparing the intensities of the reporter ions (in iTRAQ/TMT) or the MS¹ peak intensities (in SILAC) to the standard curve, researchers can calculate the absolute concentration of the target protein in their sample. However, it is more complex than relative quantification, as it involves additional steps for calibration and is typically used when exact quantification of protein amounts is required.
Q7: What types of samples can be mixed in the same TMT or iTRAQ experiment?
A7: Samples included in the same TMT or iTRAQ batch should be biologically comparable and processed under consistent conditions. For example, it's appropriate to compare the same cell line or tissue type under "control vs. drug treatment" conditions. Avoid mixing samples from different tissue types (e.g., liver, brain, muscle), as their protein compositions and complexities vary greatly, which can lead to high-abundance proteins masking low-abundance signals, reducing identification depth and quantification accuracy. Also, it's best to avoid combining samples collected or processed in different batches, as this introduces technical variability. In short, TMT/iTRAQ experiments work best when biological background and experimental conditions are well-matched across all samples to ensure data quality and comparability.
Q8: Can signal shifts between different tissues in TMT experiments be corrected by data normalization?
A8: Some technical variation can be adjusted using normalization methods such as total intensity normalization or median correction.However, when the biological differences between tissues are too large, normalization may mask true biological signals or introduce false positives. In such cases, normalization cannot substitute for proper experimental design. Careful sample grouping based on biological similarity remains essential for reliable results.
Q9: After SILAC labeling, how long should cells be cultured before protein extraction for mass spectrometry?
A9: Since SILAC is an in vivo labeling strategy, cells must be cultured for at least 5–6 population doublings to ensure that native amino acids (e.g., Lys, Arg) are fully replaced by isotope-labeled counterparts. The exact duration depends on the cell type and growth rate. To confirm labeling efficiency, a small-scale MS pretest is recommended. A labeling incorporation rate of ≥95% is generally required for reliable downstream SILAC-based proteomic analysis.
Q10: How can I assess whether sample mixing is uniform in a TMT experiment?
A10: You can evaluate mixing uniformity by comparing equal volumes of each sample using SDS-PAGE before and after labeling. Additionally, after MS analysis, inspect the reporter ion intensities across all TMT channels—these should be roughly balanced. Significant deviations may indicate poor mixing or labeling efficiency and could require re-labeling or re-mixing of the samples.
Related Service
How to order?
