Multi-laboratory assessment of reproducibility, qualitative and quantitative performance of SWATH-mass spectrometry

Abstract

Quantitative proteomics employing mass spectrometry is an indispensable tool in life science research. Targeted proteomics has emerged as a powerful approach for reproducible quantification but is limited in the number of proteins quantified. SWATH-mass spectrometry consists of data-independent acquisition and a targeted data analysis strategy that aims to maintain the favorable quantitative characteristics (accuracy, sensitivity, and selectivity) of targeted proteomics at large scale. While previous SWATH-mass spectrometry studies have shown high intra-lab reproducibility, this has not been evaluated between labs. In this multi-laboratory evaluation study including 11 sites worldwide, we demonstrate that using SWATH-mass spectrometry data acquisition we can consistently detect and reproducibly quantify >4000 proteins from HEK293 cells. Using synthetic peptide dilution series, we show that the sensitivity, dynamic range and reproducibility established with SWATH-mass spectrometry are uniformly achieved. This study demonstrates that the acquisition of reproducible quantitative proteomics data by multiple labs is achievable, and broadly serves to increase confidence in SWATH-mass spectrometry data acquisition as a reproducible method for large-scale protein quantification.

References 73

1. 1.
   The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research · 2015

   Corrected
2. 2.

   Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531-533.

   Not in our library10.1038/483531a

3. 3.

   Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2011;10:712-712.

   Not in our library10.1038/nrd3439-c1

4. 4.

   Irizarry RA, et al. Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nat. Methods. 2005;2:345-350.

   Not in our library10.1038/nmeth756

5. 5.

   Seqc/Maqc-Iii Consortium. A comprehensive assessment of RNA-seq accuracy, reproducibility and information content by the sequencing quality control consortium. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014;32:903-914.

   Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2957

6. 6.

   Michalski A, Cox J, Mann M. More than 100,000 detectable peptide species elute in single shotgun proteomics runs but the majority is inaccessible to data-dependent LC−MS/MS. J. Proteome Res. 2011;10:1785-1793.

   Not in our library10.1021/pr101060v

7. 7.

   Tabb DL, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility in proteomic identifications by liquid chromatography−tandem mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 2010;9:761-776.

   Not in our library10.1021/pr9006365

8. 8.

   Bell AW, et al. A HUPO test sample study reveals common problems in mass spectrometry–based proteomics. Nat. Methods. 2009;6:423-430.

   Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.1333

9. 9.
   Extending the Limits of Quantitative Proteome Profiling with Data-Independent Acquisition and Application to Acetaminophen-Treated Three-Dimensional Liver Microtissues · 2015

   No notice
10. 10.
    Performance Metrics for Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Systems in Proteomics Analyses · 2010

    No notice
11. 11.

    Smith RD, et al. An accurate mass tag strategy for quantitative and high-throughput proteome measurements. Proteomics. 2002;2:513-23.

    Not in our library10.1002/1615-9861(200205)2:5<513::aid-prot513>3.0.co;2-w

12. 12.

    Pasa-Tolić L, Masselon C, Barry RC, Shen Y, Smith RD. Proteomic analyses using an accurate mass and time tag strategy. Biotechniques. 2004;37:621-624.

    Not in our library10.2144/04374rv01

13. 13.

    Mueller LN, et al. SuperHirn - a novel tool for high resolution LC-MS-based peptide/protein profiling. Proteomics. 2007;7:3470-80.

    Not in our library10.1002/pmic.200700057

14. 14.
    Accurate Proteome-wide Label-free Quantification by Delayed Normalization and Maximal Peptide Ratio Extraction, Termed MaxLFQ · 2014

    No notice
15. 15.

    Zhang B, Käll L, Zubarev RA. DeMix-Q: quantification-centered data processing workflow. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2016;15:1467-1478.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.o115.055475

16. 16.

    Schilling B, et al. Platform-independent and label-free quantitation of proteomic data using ms1 extracted ion chromatograms in skyline application to protein acetylation and phoshorylation. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2012;11:202-214.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.m112.017707

17. 17.

    Method of the Year 2012. Nat. Methods10, 1–1 (2013).

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2329

18. 18.

    Gallien S, et al. Targeted proteomic quantification on quadrupole-orbitrap mass spectrometer. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2012;11:1709-1723.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.o112.019802

19. 19.

    Peterson AC, Russell JD, Bailey DJ, Westphall MS, Coon JJ. parallel reaction monitoring for high resolution and high mass accuracy quantitative, targeted proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2012;11:1475-1488.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.o112.020131

20. 20.

    Schilling B, et al. Multiplexed, scheduled, high-resolution parallel reaction monitoring on a full scan QqTOF instrument with integrated data-dependent and targeted mass spectrometric workflows. Anal. Chem. 2015;87:10222-10229.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02983

21. 21.

    Picotti P, et al. A complete mass-spectrometric map of the yeast proteome applied to quantitative trait analysis. Nature. 2013;494:266-70.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11835

22. 22.

    Cima I, et al. Cancer genetics-guided discovery of serum biomarker signatures for diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:3342-3347.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1013699108

23. 23.

    Wu Y, et al. Multilayered genetic and omics dissection of mitochondrial activity in a mouse reference population. Cell. 2014;158:1415-1430.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.039

24. 24.

    Addona TA, et al. Multi-site assessment of the precision and reproducibility of multiple reaction monitoring-based measurements of proteins in plasma. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009;27:633-641.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.1546

25. 25.

    Kuhn E, et al. Interlaboratory evaluation of automated, multiplexed peptide immunoaffinity enrichment coupled to multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry for quantifying proteins in plasma. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2012;11:M111.013854.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.m111.013854

26. 26.

    Abbatiello SE, et al. Large-scale interlaboratory study to develop, analytically validate and apply highly multiplexed, quantitative peptide assays to measure cancer-relevant proteins in plasma. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2015;14:2357-2374.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.m114.047050

27. 27.

    Kennedy JJ, et al. Demonstrating the feasibility of large-scale development of standardized assays to quantify human proteins. Nat. Methods. 2014;11:149-155.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2763

28. 28.

    Prakash A, et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility of selective reaction monitoring assays using multiple upfront analyte enrichment strategies. J. Proteome Res. 2012;11:3986-3995.

    Not in our library10.1021/pr300014s

29. 29.

    Percy AJ, et al. Inter-laboratory evaluation of instrument platforms and experimental workflows for quantitative accuracy and reproducibility assessment. EuPA Open Proteomics. 2015;8:6-15.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.euprot.2015.06.001

30. 30.

    Gillet LC, et al. Targeted data extraction of the MS/MS spectra generated by data independent acquisition: a new concept for consistent and accurate proteome analysis. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2012;11:O111.016717.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.o111.016717

31. 31.

    Purvine S, Eppel JT, Yi EC, Goodlett DR. Shotgun collision-induced dissociation of peptides using a time of flight mass analyzer. Proteomics. 2003;3:847-50.

    Not in our library10.1002/pmic.200300362

32. 32.

    Venable JD, Dong M-Q, Wohlschlegel J, Dillin A, Yates JR. Automated approach for quantitative analysis of complex peptide mixtures from tandem mass spectra. Nat. Methods. 2004;1:39-45.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth705

33. 33.

    Ting YS, et al. Peptide-centric proteome analysis: An alternative strategy for the analysis of tandem mass spectrometry data. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2015;14:2301-2307.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.o114.047035

34. 34.

    Gillet LC, Leitner A, Aebersold R. Mass spectrometry applied to bottom-up proteomics: Entering the high-throughput era for hypothesis testing. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2016;9:449-472.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-anchem-071015-041535

35. 35.

    Röst HL, et al. OpenSWATH enables automated, targeted analysis of data-independent acquisition MS data. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014;32:219-223.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.2841

36. 36.

    Tsou C-C, et al. DIA-Umpire: comprehensive computational framework for data-independent acquisition proteomics. Nat. Methods. 2015;12:258-264.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3255

37. 37.

    Keller A, Bader SL, Shteynberg D, Hood L, Moritz RL. Automated validation of results and removal of fragment ion interferences in targeted analysis of data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry (MS) using SWATHProphet. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2015;14:1411-1418.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.o114.044917

38. 38.

    Wang J, et al. MSPLIT-DIA: sensitive peptide identification for data-independent acquisition. Nat. Methods. 2015;12:1106-1108.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.3655

39. 39.

    Navarro P, et al. A multicenter study benchmarks software tools for label-free proteome quantification. Nat. Biotechnol. 2016;34:1130-1136.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3685

40. 40.

    Collins BC, et al. Quantifying protein interaction dynamics by SWATH mass spectrometry: application to the 14-3-3 system. Nat. Methods. 2013;10:1246-1253.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth.2703

Cited by papers we hold 17

• Mass spectrometry-based proteomics as an emerging tool in clinical laboratories · 2023
  No notice
• MS-Based Proteomics of Body Fluids: The End of the Beginning · 2023
  No notice
• Machine learning for multi-omics data integration in cancer · 2022
  Not checked
• Connecting aging biology and inflammation in the omics era · 2022
  No notice
• From coarse to fine: the absolute Escherichia coli proteome under diverse growth conditions · 2021
  Corrected
• Proteomics in aging research: A roadmap to clinical, translational research · 2021
  No notice
• Diagnostics and correction of batch effects in large‐scale proteomic studies: a tutorial · 2021
  No notice
• Orthogonal Proteomic Platforms and Their Implications for the Stable Classification of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Subtypes · 2020
  Not checked
• A primary human T-cell spectral library to facilitate large scale quantitative T-cell proteomics · 2020
  Not checked
• Recent advances in mass spectrometry based clinical proteomics: applications to cancer research · 2020
  No notice
• NAguideR: performing and prioritizing missing value imputations for consistent bottom-up proteomic analyses · 2020
  No notice
• A proteomic atlas of senescence-associated secretomes for aging biomarker development · 2020
  No notice
• A high-stringency blueprint of the human proteome · 2020
  No notice
• Breast Cancer Classification Based on Proteotypes Obtained by SWATH Mass Spectrometry · 2019
  Not checked
• Complex‐centric proteome profiling by SEC‐SWATH‐MS · 2019
  No notice
• Data‐independent acquisition‐based SWATH‐MS for quantitative proteomics: a tutorial · 2018
  No notice
• Systematic proteome and proteostasis profiling in human Trisomy 21 fibroblast cells · 2017
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.