2009
DOI: 10.1021/pr900080y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Labeling and Label-Free Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics Approaches

Abstract: The proteome of the recently discovered bacterium Methylocella silvestris has been characterized using three profiling and comparative proteomics approaches. The organism has been grown on two different substrates enabling variations in protein expression to be identified. The results obtained using the experimental approaches have been compared with respect to number of proteins identified, confidence in identification, sequence coverage and agreement of regulated proteins. The sample preparation, instrumenta… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
196
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 237 publications
(205 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
9
196
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A total of 700 μg of soluble protein extract from MMA, TMA, and methanol-grown M. silvestris cells were used for proteomic analyses (47). The details of the method are shown in SI Materials and Methods.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 700 μg of soluble protein extract from MMA, TMA, and methanol-grown M. silvestris cells were used for proteomic analyses (47). The details of the method are shown in SI Materials and Methods.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Labelfree quantitative (LFQ) 1 workflows become increasingly popular as the often expensive and time-consuming labeling protocols are omitted. Moreover, LFQ proteomics allows for more flexibility in comparing samples and tends to cover a larger area of the proteome at a higher dynamic range (7,8). Nevertheless, the nature of the LFQ protocol makes shotgun proteomic data analysis a challenging task.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A final concern involves the use of a wide variety of proteomic methods for the characterization of samples. Not only do the many documented approaches label enzymatically digested peptides in different ways (ex ICAT vs iTRAQ labeling, discussed above), there is evidence that the number of proteins detected and identified can vary by as much as 200% (as is the case when iTRAQ and labelfree methods were compared head to head using identical samples (Patel et al, 2009)). Clearly, although these studies have advanced our understanding of molecular alterations that occur in response to exposure to morphine, the field of proteomics would benefit from greater standardization of labeling techniques, methods, and morphine administration protocols for the induction of tolerance and physical dependence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%