TY - JOUR
T1 - Integrated bottom-up and top-down proteomics of patient-derived breast tumor xenografts
AU - Ntai, Ioanna
AU - LeDuc, Richard D.
AU - Fellers, Ryan T.
AU - Erdmann-Gilmore, Petra
AU - Davies, Sherri R.
AU - Rumsey, Jeanne
AU - Early, Bryan P.
AU - Thomas, Paul M.
AU - Li, Shunqiang
AU - Compton, Philip D.
AU - Ellis, Matthew J.C.
AU - Ruggles, Kelly V.
AU - Fenyö, David
AU - Boja, Emily S.
AU - Rodriguez, Henry
AU - Townsend, R. Reid
AU - Kelleher, Neil L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
PY - 2016/1
Y1 - 2016/1
N2 - Bottom-up proteomics relies on the use of proteases and is the method of choice for identifying thousands of protein groups in complex samples. Top-down proteomics has been shown to be robust for direct analysis of small proteins and offers a solution to the "peptide-to-protein" inference problem inherent with bottom-up approaches. Here, we describe the first large-scale integration of genomic, bottom-up and top-down proteomic data for the comparative analysis of patient-derived mouse xenograft models of basal and luminal B human breast cancer, WHIM2 and WHIM16, respectively. Using these well-characterized xenograft models established by the National Cancer Institute's Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, we compared and contrasted the performance of bottom-up and top-down proteomics to detect cancer-specific aberrations at the peptide and proteoform levels and to measure differential expression of proteins and proteoforms. Bottom-up proteomic analysis of the tumor xenografts detected almost 10 times as many coding nucleotide polymorphisms and peptides resulting from novel splice junctions than top-down. For proteins in the range of 0-30 kDa, where quantitation was performed using both approaches, bottom-up proteomics quantified 3,519 protein groups from 49,185 peptides, while topdown proteomics quantified 982 proteoforms mapping to 358 proteins. Examples of both concordant and discordant quantitation were found in a ~60:40 ratio, providing a unique opportunity for top-down to fill in missing information. The two techniques showed complementary performance, with bottom-up yielding eight times more identifications of 0-30 kDa proteins in xenograft proteomes, but failing to detect differences in certain posttranslational modifications (PTMs), such as phosphorylation pattern changes of alpha-endosulfine. This work illustrates the potency of a combined bottom-up and top-down proteomics approach to deepen our knowledge of cancer biology, especially when genomic data are available.
AB - Bottom-up proteomics relies on the use of proteases and is the method of choice for identifying thousands of protein groups in complex samples. Top-down proteomics has been shown to be robust for direct analysis of small proteins and offers a solution to the "peptide-to-protein" inference problem inherent with bottom-up approaches. Here, we describe the first large-scale integration of genomic, bottom-up and top-down proteomic data for the comparative analysis of patient-derived mouse xenograft models of basal and luminal B human breast cancer, WHIM2 and WHIM16, respectively. Using these well-characterized xenograft models established by the National Cancer Institute's Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium, we compared and contrasted the performance of bottom-up and top-down proteomics to detect cancer-specific aberrations at the peptide and proteoform levels and to measure differential expression of proteins and proteoforms. Bottom-up proteomic analysis of the tumor xenografts detected almost 10 times as many coding nucleotide polymorphisms and peptides resulting from novel splice junctions than top-down. For proteins in the range of 0-30 kDa, where quantitation was performed using both approaches, bottom-up proteomics quantified 3,519 protein groups from 49,185 peptides, while topdown proteomics quantified 982 proteoforms mapping to 358 proteins. Examples of both concordant and discordant quantitation were found in a ~60:40 ratio, providing a unique opportunity for top-down to fill in missing information. The two techniques showed complementary performance, with bottom-up yielding eight times more identifications of 0-30 kDa proteins in xenograft proteomes, but failing to detect differences in certain posttranslational modifications (PTMs), such as phosphorylation pattern changes of alpha-endosulfine. This work illustrates the potency of a combined bottom-up and top-down proteomics approach to deepen our knowledge of cancer biology, especially when genomic data are available.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84955463692
U2 - 10.1074/mcp.M114.047480
DO - 10.1074/mcp.M114.047480
M3 - Article
C2 - 26503891
AN - SCOPUS:84955463692
SN - 1535-9476
VL - 15
SP - 45
EP - 56
JO - Molecular and Cellular Proteomics
JF - Molecular and Cellular Proteomics
IS - 1
ER -