The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fractionation of Isotopically Labeled Peptides in Quantitative Proteomics
Abstract
The goal of quantitative proteomics is to examine the expression levels of all of the proteins in a biological system and recognize those that change as a function of some stimulus. Quantification is now frequently based on derivatization of peptides with isotopically distinguishable labeling agents. This study examines the extent to which isotopic forms of peptides having the same amino acid sequence are resolved by reversed-phase chromatography and assesses the degree to which resolution of these isotopically different forms of a peptide impact quantification. Three derivatizing agents were examined, the do and d3 forms of N-acetoxysuccinimide, the do and d4 forms of succinic anhydride, and the do and d8 forms of the commercial ICAT reagent Peptide mixtures from control and experimental samples were derivatized individually, mixed, subjected to reversed-phase chromatography, and analyzed by ESI-MS. When partial resolution of the isotopic forms of a peptide occurs, the largest error in assessing the true isotope ratio in a sample occurs when sampling at the extremes of a peak. Early in the elution of a peak, the sample will be enriched in the deuterated species, whereas the opposite is true at the tailing edge of a peak. Acetylated peptides showed the lowest degree of separation. Resolution of the deuterated and nondeuterated forms in this case was 0.023. This amounts to slightly over a 1-s difference in their peak maxima and can cause a typical error of +/- 6% at the leading and tailing edges of a peak. In contrast, resolution of the deuterated and nondeuterated forms of the ICAT reagent were calculated to be 0.45. This means that in a peak of 1-min width (W1/2), the peak maxima will vary by approximately 30 s, and measurement errors of -83 and +500% can occur at the leading and tailing edges of a peak. It is concluded that resolution of isotopic forms of a peptide can cause substantial quantification errors in quantitative proteomics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: critical review update from 2007 to the present
Bantscheff, M., Lemeer, S., Savitski, M. M., & Kuster, B. (2012) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-012-6203-4 · Cited by 801
Detection technologies in proteome analysis
Patton, W. F. (2002) · Journal of Chromatography B · doi:10.1016/s1570-0232(02)00043-0 · Cited by 476
Mass spectrometric-based approaches in quantitative proteomics
Ong, S. (2003) · Methods · doi:10.1016/s1046-2023(02)00303-1 · Cited by 451
Kuhn, E., Wu, J., Karl, J., Liao, H., Zolg, W., & Guild, B. (2004) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200300670 · Cited by 398
Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Histone Modifications
Huang, H., Lin, S., Garcia, B. A., & Zhao, Y. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500491u · Cited by 370
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, R., Sioma, C. S., Wang, S., & Regnier, F. E.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2001-10-03
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 5142-5149
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W2027961368
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fractionation of Isotopically Labeled Peptides in Quantitative Proteomics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ac010583a
- The paper
- Zhang, R., Sioma, C. S., Wang, S., & Regnier, F. E. (2001). Fractionation of Isotopically Labeled Peptides in Quantitative Proteomics. Analytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac010583a
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.