Systematic Comparison of Label-Free, Metabolic Labeling, and Isobaric Chemical Labeling for Quantitative Proteomics on LTQ Orbitrap Velos
datasetposted on 02.03.2012 by Zhou Li, Rachel M. Adams, Karuna Chourey, Gregory B. Hurst, Robert L. Hettich, Chongle Pan
Datasets usually provide raw data for analysis. This raw data often comes in spreadsheet form, but can be any collection of data, on which analysis can be performed.
A variety of quantitative proteomics methods have been developed, including label-free, metabolic labeling, and isobaric chemical labeling using iTRAQ or TMT. Here, these methods were compared in terms of the depth of proteome coverage, quantification accuracy, precision, and reproducibility using a high-performance hybrid mass spectrometer, LTQ Orbitrap Velos. Our results show that (1) the spectral counting method provides the deepest proteome coverage for identification, but its quantification performance is worse than labeling-based approaches, especially the quantification reproducibility; (2) metabolic labeling and isobaric chemical labeling are capable of accurate, precise, and reproducible quantification and provide deep proteome coverage for quantification; isobaric chemical labeling surpasses metabolic labeling in terms of quantification precision and reproducibility; and (3) iTRAQ and TMT perform similarly in all aspects compared in the current study using a CID-HCD dual scan configuration. On the basis of the unique advantages of each method, we provide guidance for selection of the appropriate method for a quantitative proteomics study.