A biologist’s guide to modern techniques in quantitative proteomics

Importance of the Topic

Quantitative proteomics underpins our ability to measure protein abundance and post-translational modifications across diverse biological systems. Accurate protein quantitation is essential for understanding cellular processes, disease mechanisms, and drug responses. Modern mass spectrometry–based workflows have replaced traditional antibody-dependent methods to deliver higher throughput, sensitivity, and multiplexing capabilities.

Goals and Overview of the Study

The reviewed article compares discovery and targeted quantitative proteomics approaches, examining their trade-offs in proteome coverage, precision, accuracy, throughput, and method development. Key objectives include: identifying techniques for system-wide protein profiling; assessing isotope labeling and label-free methods for discovery workflows; and outlining targeted strategies for focused protein quantitation.

Methodology and Instrumentation

Discovery proteomics methods:

• Label-free quantitation (LFQ) using data-dependent acquisition (DDA) or data-independent acquisition (DIA).
• Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC).
• Isobaric tagging with Tandem Mass Tags (TMT).

Targeted proteomics methods:

• Selected reaction monitoring (SRM) on triple quadrupole instruments.
• Selected ion monitoring (SIM) on high-resolution Orbitrap systems.
• Parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) on hybrid quadrupole-Orbitrap instruments.
• SureQuant internal standard–triggered PRM workflows.

Instrumentation Used

• Triple quadrupole mass spectrometers (e.g. TSQ series).
• High-resolution accurate-mass instruments (Orbitrap, Q-OT-qIT).
• Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography systems.
• Real-time database search and synchronous precursor selection (SPS) capabilities.

Major Results and Discussion

Discovery workflows:

• LFQ DDA achieves medium coverage with ~6,000 proteins in 2-hour runs, but stochastic sampling leads to missing data without advanced alignment algorithms.
• LFQ DIA improves reproducibility and depth, detecting >2,400 urinary proteins in clinical samples.
• SILAC delivers high accuracy by metabolic labeling, enabling early mixing and minimal variability for phosphorylation analysis of HIV-infected cells.
• TMT multiplexing (up to 16-plex) allows simultaneous quantitation with <10% CV, identifying candidate biomarkers in pulmonary hypertension cohorts.

Targeted workflows:

• SRM offers high sensitivity and dynamic range for hundreds of peptides, used to monitor thrombospondin and hemoglobin during clotting.
• SIM on Orbitraps provides simplified setup and attomole detection limits for medium-complexity samples.
• PRM yields high selectivity and confirmation via full-spectrum matching, applied to AKT/mTOR pathway analysis.
• SureQuant uses spiked stable isotopes to trigger high-quality MS2 acquisition on-the-fly, doubling the number of quantifiable targets compared to PRM alone.

Benefits and Practical Applications

These methods enable quantitative measurement of thousands of proteins or focused panels with high confidence. Discovery approaches guide biomarker discovery and system biology studies, while targeted assays validate candidate proteins in large sample sets. The flexibility to choose label-free, metabolic, or chemical labeling workflows allows adaptation to sample type, instrument access, and study design.

Future Trends and Applications

Advances in real-time acquisition control, automated software algorithms, and extended multiplexing (NeuCode, TMTpro) will further increase throughput and sensitivity. Integration with single-cell proteomics and clinical mass spectrometry will expand applications in precision medicine. Artificial intelligence–driven data analysis promises enhanced feature detection and reduced missing values.

Conclusion

Modern quantitative proteomics offers a continuum from broad discovery to focused targeted assays. Balancing coverage, throughput, accuracy, and reproducibility remains critical. Selecting the optimal workflow requires aligning experimental goals with instrument capabilities and sample complexity. Emerging internal standard–triggered methods and enhanced multiplexing will continue to drive deeper biological insights and clinical translation.

References

• Thompson A et al. Anal Chem. 2003;75(8):1895–904.
• Ong SE et al. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2002;1(5):376–86.
• Bantscheff M et al. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;389(4):1017–31.
• Kiyonami R et al. Thermo Scientific App Note #500. 2010.
• Dufresne C et al. ASMS 2019 Poster.
• Eliuk S et al. ASMS 2013 Poster.
• Hebert AS et al. Nat Methods. 2013;10:332–4.
• Bomgarden RD et al. ASMS 2017 Poster.
• McAlister GC et al. Anal Chem. 2014;86(14):7150–8.
• Erickson BK et al. J Proteome Res. 2019;18(3):1299–306.
• Snovida SI et al. ASMS 2019 Poster.
• Peterson AC et al. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012;11:1475–88.
• Gallien S et al. ASMS 2019 Poster.
• Sarracino D et al. ASMS 2017 Poster.
• Kiyonami R et al. ASMS 2011 Poster.
• Gallien S et al. Hupo 2018 Poster.