Accurate estimation of isoelectric point of protein and peptide based on amino acid sequences

Motivation: In any macromolecular polyprotic system - for example protein, DNA or RNA - the isoelectric point - commonly referred to as the pI - can be defined as the point of singularity in a titration curve, corresponding to the solution pH value at which the net overall surface charge - and thus the electrophoretic mobility - of the ampholyte sums to zero. Different modern analytical biochemistry and proteomics methods depend on the isoelectric point as a principal feature for protein and peptide characterization. Protein separation by isoelectric point is a critical part of 2-D gel electrophoresis, a key precursor of proteomics, where discrete spots can be digested in-gel, and proteins subsequently identified by analytical mass spectrometry. Peptide fractionation according to their pI is also widely used in current proteomics sample preparation procedures previous to the LC-MS/MS analysis. Therefore accurate theoretical prediction of pI would expedite such analysis. While such pI calculation is widely used, it remains largely untested, motivating our efforts to benchmark pI prediction methods. Results: Using data from the database PIP-DB and one publically available dataset as our reference gold standard, we have undertaken the benchmarking of pI calculation methods. We find that methods vary in their accuracy and are highly sensitive to the choice of basis set. The machine-learning algorithms, especially the SVM-based algorithm, showed a superior performance when studying peptide mixtures. In general, learning-based pI prediction methods (such as Cofactor, SVM and Branca) require a large training dataset and their resulting performance will strongly depend of the quality of that data. In contrast with Iterative methods, machine-learning algorithms have the advantage of being able to add new features to improve the accuracy of prediction. Contact: [email protected] Availability and Implementation: The software and data are freely available at https://github.com/ypriverol/pIR. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online

LFQ-Based Peptide and Protein Intensity Differential Expression Analysis

Testing for significant differences in quantities at the protein level is a common goal of many LFQ-based mass spectrometry proteomics experiments. Starting from a table of protein and/or peptide quantities from a given proteomics quantification software, many tools and R packages exist to perform the final tasks of imputation, summarization, normalization, and statistical testing. To evaluate the effects of packages and settings in their substeps on the final list of significant proteins, we studied several packages on three public data sets with known expected protein fold changes. We found that the results between packages and even across different parameters of the same package can vary significantly. In addition to usability aspects and feature/compatibility lists of different packages, this paper highlights sensitivity and specificity trade-offs that come with specific packages and settings

Tissue-based absolute quantification using large-scale TMT and LFQ experiments

Relative and absolute intensity-based protein quantification across cell lines, tissue atlases and tumour datasets is increasingly available in public datasets. These atlases enable researchers to explore fundamental biological questions, such as protein existence, expression location, quantity and correlation with RNA expression. Most studies provide MS1 feature-based label-free quantitative (LFQ) datasets; however, growing numbers of isobaric tandem mass tags (TMT) datasets remain unexplored. Here, we compare traditional intensity-based absolute quantification (iBAQ) proteome abundance ranking to an analogous method using reporter ion proteome abundance ranking with data from an experiment where LFQ and TMT were measured on the same samples. This new TMT method substitutes reporter ion intensities for MS1 feature intensities in the iBAQ framework. Additionally, we compared LFQ-iBAQ values to TMT-iBAQ values from two independent large-scale tissue atlas datasets (one LFQ and one TMT) using robust bottom-up proteomic identification, normalisation and quantitation workflows

OLS Client and OLS Dialog: Open source tools to annotate public omics datasets

The availability of user‐friendly software to annotate biological datasets and experimental details is becoming essential in data management practices, both in local storage systems and in public databases. The Ontology Lookup Service (OLS, http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols) is a popular centralized service to query, browse and navigate biomedical ontologies and controlled vocabularies. Recently, the OLS framework has been completely redeveloped (version 3.0), including enhancements in the data model, like the added support for Web Ontology Language based ontologies, among many other improvements. However, the new OLS is not backwards compatible and new software tools are needed to enable access to this widely used framework now that the previous version is no longer available. We here present the OLS Client as a free, open‐source Java library to retrieve information from the new version of the OLS. It enables rapid tool creation by providing a robust, pluggable programming interface and common data model to programmatically access the OLS. The library has already been integrated and is routinely used by several bioinformatics resources and related data annotation tools. Secondly, we also introduce an updated version of the OLS Dialog (version 2.0), a Java graphical user interface that can be easily plugged into Java desktop applications to access the OLS. The software and related documentation are freely available at https://github.com/PRIDE-Utilities/ols-client and https://github.com/PRIDE-Toolsuite/ols-dialog.publishedVersio

Generation of ENSEMBL-based proteogenomics databases boosts the identification of non-canonical peptides

We have implemented the pypgatk package and the pgdb workflow to create proteogenomics databases based on ENSEMBL resources. The tools allow the generation of protein sequences from novel protein-coding transcripts by performing a three-frame translation of pseudogenes, lncRNAs and other non-canonical transcripts, such as those produced by alternative splicing events. It also includes exonic out-of-frame translation from otherwise canonical protein-coding mRNAs. Moreover, the tool enables the generation of variant protein sequences from multiple sources of genomic variants including COSMIC, cBioportal, gnomAD and mutations detected from sequencing of patient samples. pypgatk and pgdb provide multiple functionalities for database handling including optimized target/decoy generation by the algorithm DecoyPyrat. Finally, we have reanalyzed six public datasets in PRIDE by generating cell-type specific databases for 65 cell lines using the pypgatk and pgdb workflow, revealing a wealth of non-canonical or cryptic peptides amounting to >5% of the total number of peptides identified

An integrated landscape of protein expression in human cancer

Using 11 proteomics datasets, mostly available through the PRIDE database, we assembled a reference expression map for 191 cancer cell lines and 246 clinical tumour samples, across 13 lineages. We found unique peptides identified only in tumour samples despite a much higher coverage in cell lines. These were mainly mapped to proteins related to regulation of signalling receptor activity. Correlations between baseline expression in cell lines and tumours were calculated. We found these to be highly similar across all samples with most similarity found within a given sample type. Integration of proteomics and transcriptomics data showed median correlation across cell lines to be 0.58 (range between 0.43 and 0.66). Additionally, in agreement with previous studies, variation in mRNA levels was often a poor predictor of changes in protein abundance. To our knowledge, this work constitutes the first meta-analysis focusing on cancer-related public proteomics datasets. We therefore also highlight shortcomings and limitations of such studies. All data is available through PRIDE dataset identifier PXD013455 and in Expression Atlas.publishedVersio

ABRF Proteome Informatics Research Group (iPRG) 2016 Study: Inferring Proteoforms from Bottom-up Proteomics Data.

This report presents the results from the 2016 Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities Proteome Informatics Research Group (iPRG) study on proteoform inference and false discovery rate (FDR) estimation from bottom-up proteomics data. For this study, 3 replicate Q Exactive Orbitrap liquid chromatography-tandom mass spectrometry datasets were generated from each of

Method for Independent Estimation of the False Localization Rate for Phosphoproteomics

Phosphoproteomic methods are commonly employed to identify and quantify phosphorylation sites on proteins. In recent years, various tools have been developed, incorporating scores or statistics related to whether a given phosphosite has been correctly identified or to estimate the global false localization rate (FLR) within a given data set for all sites reported. These scores have generally been calibrated using synthetic datasets, and their statistical reliability on real datasets is largely unknown, potentially leading to studies reporting incorrectly localized phosphosites, due to inadequate statistical control. In this work, we develop the concept of scoring modifications on a decoy amino acid, that is, one that cannot be modified, to allow for independent estimation of global FLR. We test a variety of amino acids, on both synthetic and real data sets, demonstrating that the selection can make a substantial difference to the estimated global FLR. We conclude that while several different amino acids might be appropriate, the most reliable FLR results were achieved using alanine and leucine as decoys. We propose the use of a decoy amino acid to control false reporting in the literature and in public databases that re-distribute the data. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD028840