Proteome Profiling Outperforms Transcriptome Profiling for Coexpression Based Gene Function Prediction

Coexpression of mRNAs under multiple conditions is commonly used to infer cofunctionality of their gene products despite well-known limitations of this “guilt-by-association” (GBA) approach. Recent advancements in mass spectrometry-based proteomic technologies have enabled global expression profiling at the protein level; however, whether proteome profiling data can outperform transcriptome profiling data for coexpression based gene function prediction has not been systematically investigated. Here, we address this question by constructing and analyzing mRNA and protein coexpression networks for three cancer types with matched mRNA and protein profiling data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC). Our analyses revealed a marked difference in wiring between the mRNA and protein coexpression networks. Whereas protein coexpression was driven primarily by functional similarity between coexpressed genes, mRNA coexpression was driven by both cofunction and chromosomal colocalization of the genes. Functionally coherent mRNA modules were more likely to have their edges preserved in corresponding protein networks than functionally incoherent mRNA modules. Proteomic data strengthened the link between gene expression and function for at least 75% of Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes and 90% of KEGG pathways. A web application Gene2Net (http://cptac.gene2net.org) developed based on the three protein coexpression networks revealed novel gene-function relationships, such as linking ERBB2 (HER2) to lipid biosynthetic process in breast cancer, identifying PLG as a new gene involved in complement activation, and identifying AEBP1 as a new epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) marker. Our results demonstrate that proteome profiling outperforms transcriptome profiling for coexpression based gene function prediction. Proteomics should be integrated if not preferred in gene function and human disease studies

Statistical Design for Biospecimen Cohort Size in Proteomics-based Biomarker Discovery and Verification Studies

Protein biomarkers are needed to deepen our understanding of cancer biology and to improve our ability to diagnose, monitor and treat cancers. Important analytical and clinical hurdles must be overcome to allow the most promising protein biomarker candidates to advance into clinical validation studies. Although contemporary proteomics technologies support the measurement of large numbers of proteins in individual clinical specimens, sample throughput remains comparatively low. This problem is amplified in typical clinical proteomics research studies, which routinely suffer from a lack of proper experimental design, resulting in analysis of too few biospecimens to achieve adequate statistical power at each stage of a biomarker pipeline. To address this critical shortcoming, a joint workshop was held by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC), with participation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An important output from the workshop was a statistical framework for the design of biomarker discovery and verification studies. Herein, we describe the use of quantitative clinical judgments to set statistical criteria for clinical relevance, and the development of an approach to calculate biospecimen sample size for proteomic studies in discovery and verification stages prior to clinical validation stage. This represents a first step towards building a consensus on quantitative criteria for statistical design of proteomics biomarker discovery and verification research

How many human proteoforms are there?

Despite decades of accumulated knowledge about proteins and their post-translational modifications (PTMs), numerous questions remain regarding their molecular composition and biological function. One of the most fundamental queries is the extent to which the combinations of DNA-, RNA- and PTM-level variations explode the complexity of the human proteome. Here, we outline what we know from current databases and measurement strategies including mass spectrometry-based proteomics. In doing so, we examine prevailing notions about the number of modifications displayed on human proteins and how they combine to generate the protein diversity underlying health and disease. We frame central issues regarding determination of protein-level variation and PTMs, including some paradoxes present in the field today. We use this framework to assess existing data and to ask the question, "How many distinct primary structures of proteins (proteoforms) are created from the 20,300 human genes?" We also explore prospects for improving measurements to better regularize protein-level biology and efficiently associate PTMs to function and phenotype

Recommendations for the Generation, Quantification, Storage, and Handling of Peptides Used for Mass Spectrometry-Based Assays

BACKGROUND: For many years, basic and clinical researchers have taken advantage of the analytical sensitivity and specificity afforded by mass spectrometry in the measurement of proteins. Clinical laboratories are now beginning to deploy these work flows as well. For assays that use proteolysis to generate peptides for protein quantification and characterization, synthetic stable isotope-labeled internal standard peptides are of central importance. No general recommendations are currently available surrounding the use of peptides in protein mass spectrometric assays. CONTENT: The Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium of the National Cancer Institute has collaborated with clinical laboratorians, peptide manufacturers, metrologists, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, and other professionals to develop a consensus set of recommendations for peptide procurement, characterization, storage, and handling, as well as approaches to the interpretation of the data generated by mass spectrometric protein assays. Additionally, the importance of carefully characterized reference materials-in particular, peptide standards for the improved concordance of amino acid analysis methods across the industry-is highlighted. The alignment of practices around the use of peptides and the transparency of sample preparation protocols should allow for the harmonization of peptide and protein quantification in research and clinical care

Four areas of engagement requiring strengthening in modern proteomics today

The global human proteomics community in 2014 is fully engaged in projects that aim to create a better understanding of human biology and its complexities and to provide products from this new knowledge that will in some way benefit humanity. Human proteomics, like any other scientific enterprise, needs to identify areas of direction and development, both for the near future in completing current research projects and into the long-term for the engagement with even more complex challenges. In this Editorial we highlight and discuss four important areas that we collectively believe require attention and demand a collective response going forward. These four areas are: (1) Provide high-quality standardized, sensitive, specific, quantitative, and readily accessible protein, peptide, or other biomarkers of health, disease, response to therapy into the approval processes of regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FDA), and obtaining approval from the relevant agencies for their use in a clinical or other testing settings. (2) Implement standard processes for collecting, processing, and storing human clinical samples in biorepositories and enforcement of measures to ensure subject integrity including informed consent for the downstream use of samples and in registrations of subject identities within study databases. (3) Test and validate mass spectrometry technology platforms that hold much promise for creating opportunities for obtaining new important knowledge at levels of detection previously not achievable. (4) Organize clinical discovery operations and activities in an intuitive manner to meet the challenges of increased interests in the science we provide and diminishing levels of centrally financed resource and infrastructure support.9 page(s