Covalent modification of histones has an important role in regulating chromatin dynamics and transcription. Whereas most covalent histone modifications are reversible, until recently it was unknown whether methyl groups could be actively removed from histones. Using a biochemical assay coupled with chromatography, we have purified a novel JmjC domain-containing protein, JHDM1 (JmjC domain-containing histone demethylase 1), that specifically demethylates histone H3 at lysine 36 (H3-K36). In the presence of Fe(ii) and alpha-ketoglutarate, JHDM1 demethylates H3-methyl-K36 and generates formaldehyde and succinate. Overexpression of JHDM1 reduced the level of dimethyl-H3-K36 (H3K36me2) in vivo. The demethylase activity of the JmjC domain-containing proteins is conserved, as a JHDM1 homologue in Saccharomyces cerevisiae also has H3-K36 demethylase activity. Thus, we identify the JmjC domain as a novel demethylase signature motif and uncover a protein demethylation mechanism that is conserved from yeast to human.

Verification of candidate biomarkers relies upon specific, quantitative assays optimized for selective detection of target proteins, and is increasingly viewed as a critical step in the discovery pipeline that bridges unbiased biomarker discovery to preclinical validation. Although individual laboratories have demonstrated that multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) coupled with isotope dilution mass spectrometry can quantify candidate protein biomarkers in plasma, reproducibility and transferability of these assays between laboratories have not been demonstrated. We describe a multilaboratory study to assess reproducibility, recovery, linear dynamic range and limits of detection and quantification of multiplexed, MRM-based assays, conducted by NCI-CPTAC. Using common materials and standardized protocols, we demonstrate that these assays can be highly reproducible within and across laboratories and instrument platforms, and are sensitive to low µg/ml protein concentrations in unfractionated plasma. We provide data and benchmarks against which individual laboratories can compare their performance and evaluate new technologies for biomarker verification in plasma.Proteomic technologies based on mass spectrometry (MS) have emerged as preferred components of a strategy for discovery of diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic protein biomarkers. Because of the stochastic sampling of proteomes in unbiased analyses and the associated high false-discovery rate, tens to hundreds of potential biomarkers are often reported in discovery studies. Those few that will ultimately show sufficient sensitivity and specificity for a given medical condition must thus be culled from lengthy lists of candidates -a particularly challenging aspect of the biomarker-development pipeline and currently its main limiting step. In this context, it is highly desirable to verify, by more targeted quantitative methods, the levels of candidate biomarkers in body fluids, cells, tissues or organs from healthy individuals and affected patients in large enough sample numbers to confirm statistically relevant differences 1, 2. Verification of novel biomarkers has relied primarily on the use of sensitive, specific, high-throughput immunoassays, whose development depends critically on the availability of suitable well-characterized antibodies. However, antibody reagents of sufficient specificity and sensitivity to assay novel protein biomarkers in plasma are generally not available. The high cost and long development time required to generate high-quality immunoassay reagents, as well as technical limitations in multiplexing immunoassays for panels of biomarkers, is strong motivation to develop more straightforward quantitative approaches exploiting the sensitivity and molecular specificity of mass spectrometry.Recently, multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) coupled with stable isotope dilution (SID)-MS for direct quantification of proteins in cell lysates as well as human plasma and serum has been shown to have considerable promise 3- RESULTS Study de...

Mass spectrometry-based multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) quantitation of proteins can dramatically impact the discovery and quantitation of biomarkers via rapid, targeted, multiplexed protein expression profiling of clinical samples. A mixture of 45 peptide standards, easily adaptable to common plasma proteomics work flows, was created to permit absolute quantitation of 45 endogenous proteins in human plasma trypsin digests. All experiments were performed on simple tryptic digests of human EDTA-plasma without prior affinity depletion or enrichment. Stable isotope-labeled standard peptides were added immediately following tryptic digestion because addition of stable isotope-labeled standard peptides prior to trypsin digestion was found to generate elevated and unpredictable results. Proteotypic tryptic peptides containing isotopically coded amino acids ( MS is capable of sensitive and accurate protein quantitation based on the quantitation of proteolytic peptides as surrogates for the corresponding intact proteins. Over the past 10 years, MS-based protein quantitation based on the analysis of peptides (in other words, based on "bottom-up" proteomics) has had a profound impact on how biological problems can be addressed (1, 2). Although advances in MS instrumentation have contributed to the improvement of MS-based protein quantitation, the use of stable isotopes in quantitative work flows has arguably had the greatest impact in improving the quality and reproducibility of MS-based protein quantitation (3-5).The ongoing development of untargeted MS-based quantitation work flows has focused on increasingly exhaustive sample prefractionation methods, at both the protein and peptide levels, with the goal of detecting and quantifying entire proteomes (6). Although untargeted MS-based quantitation work flows have their utility, they are costly in terms of lengthy MS data acquisition and analysis times, and as a result, they are often limited to quantifying differences between small sample sets (n Ͻ 10). To facilitate rapid quantitation of larger, clinically relevant sample sets (n Ͼ 100) there is a need to both simplify sample preparation and reduce MS analysis time.Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) 1 is a tandem MS (MS/MS) scan mode unique to triple quadrupole MS instrumentation that is capable of rapid, sensitive, and specific quantitation of analytes in highly complex sample matrices (7). MRM is a targeted approach that requires knowledge of the molecular weight of an 1 The abbreviations used are: MRM, multiple reaction monitoring; CE, collision energy; CV, coefficient of variation; CZE, capillary zone electrophoresis; DP, declustering potential; LOQ, limit of quantitation; Q1, quadrupole 1; Q3, quadrupole 3; SIS, stable isotope-labeled standard; XIC, extracted ion chromatogram; iTRAQ, isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation. Research

Adoption of targeted mass spectrometry (MS) approaches such as multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) to study biological and biomedical questions is well underway in the proteomics community. Successful application depends on the ability to generate reliable assays that uniquely and confidently identify target peptides in a sample. Unfortunately, there is a wide range of criteria being applied to say that an assay has been successfully developed. There is no consensus on what criteria are acceptable and little understanding of the impact of variable criteria on the quality of the results generated. Publications describing targeted MS assays for peptides frequently do not contain sufficient information for readers to establish confidence that the tests work as intended or to be able to apply the tests described in their own labs. Guidance must be developed so that targeted MS assays with established performance can be made widely distributed and applied by many labs worldwide. To begin to address the problems and their solutions, a workshop was held at the National Institutes of Health with representatives from the multiple communities developing and employing targeted MS assays. Participants discussed the analytical goals of their experiments From the ‡Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts; §Eli