Proteomics has enabled the cataloguing of 100,000s of protein phosphorylation sites 1 , however we lack methods to systematically annotate their function. Phosphorylation has numerous biological functions, yet biochemically all involve changes in protein structure and interactions. These biochemical changes can be recapitulated by measuring the difference in stability between the protein and the phosphoprotein. Building on recent work, we present a method to infer phosphosite functionality by reliably measuring such differences at the proteomic scale.
MAIN TEXTRecently, Huang et al. 2 developed the Hotspot Thermal Profiling (HTP) method to identify phosphosites that alter protein thermal stability, reporting 719 out of 2,883 (25%) phosphosites with significant effects. The reported melting temperatures (T m ) for phosphopeptides correlated poorly with the T m for their corresponding proteins (R 2 = 0.18) ( Fig. 1a), implying that many phosphosites function by structurally reshaping the proteome. However, the low T m reproducibility between replicates ( Supplementary Fig. 1a) suggests that this conclusion may be due to technical variation (Supplementary Discussion). The HTP workflow consists of phosphopeptide enrichment followed by separate isotopic labeling and mass spectrometric analysis to derive T m values for phosphopeptides and proteins, respectively. Because phosphopeptide samples also contained unmodified peptides, which are expected to have the same T m as the protein, we can use these peptides to assess technical variation between the two samples. Disconcertingly, our re-analysis revealed that 626 out of 3074 (20%) of the co-enriched unmodified peptides had significant stability effects, almost the same percentage as phosphopeptides (22%, 596 out of 2656 in our re-analysis) (Fig. 1b, Dataset S1). Additionally, the T m correlation of these peptides with their protein T m was similarly low ( R 2 = 0.18) to the correlation between phosphopeptides and protein ( Supplementary Fig. 1b). In the absence of a biological explanation, this suggests that the independent labeling and mass spectrometric analysis of peptide and phosphopeptide samples could have introduced substantial technical error precluding the comparison, and perhaps that the reported hits arise from a lack of stringency in the applied statistical analysis (Supplementary Discussion).