1 / 37

Informatics for proteomic inventories

Informatics for proteomic inventories. david.l.tabb@vanderbilt.edu Biomedical Informatics Vanderbilt University. Overview. Explaining the whys and hows of proteomics Matching peptides from protein sequence databases to MS/MS spectra

kellsie
Télécharger la présentation

Informatics for proteomic inventories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Informatics for proteomic inventories david.l.tabb@vanderbilt.edu Biomedical Informatics Vanderbilt University

  2. Overview • Explaining the whys and hows of proteomics • Matching peptides from protein sequence databases to MS/MS spectra • Filtering peptide-spectrum matches (PSMs) to an acceptable false discovery rate (FDR) • Inferring proteins parsimoniously and scalably

  3. Methods capture only part of story Genomics and epigenetics describe state of “catalog.” Transcriptomics describes current “purchase orders.” Proteomics measures current inventory of cell capabilities. Metabolomics examine cell state most directly. J_Alves: glycinetRNA J_Alves: glucose and cholesterol ElaineMeng: H-ras, PDB 121P

  4. What does proteomics include? Protein Inventories Protein Quantitation 1D and 2D Gel Electrophoresis Tissue Imaging Post-Translational Modifications Gerald_G scales, Gsagri04: gel, AB SCIEX tissue image

  5. Discovery Proteomics Protein Mixture Peptide Fractionation Peptide Mixture Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Isolate Ions of Peptide Collide Ions to Dissociate Collect Fragments in Tandem MS Two types of measurements for each peptide: intact m/z (mass/charge) and a list of fragment m/zs.

  6. Collision-induced dissociation (CID) • “Tickle” energizes peptide, causing varied conformations and proton movement. • A mobile proton associates with a carbonyl adjoining a peptide bond, drawing electrons. • Electrons of the prior carbonyl attack, forming a ringed intermediate that quickly dissociates. Wysocki et al, Anal. Chem. (2000) 35: 1399-406. Paizs and Suhai, Rapid Comm. Mass Spectrom. (2002) 16: 1699-1702.

  7. Broken peptide bonds yield fragments TSIIGTIGPK N-terminal b4 ion C-terminal y6 ion

  8. HFISELEK, +2 charge state Neutral loss of water from peptide -ISELEK -FISELEK -LEK -SELEK HF-

  9. Same spectrum compared toFHEIKELS instead of HFISELEK Neutral loss of water from peptide -EIKELS has same mass as -ISELEK FH- has same mass as HF-

  10. Disassembly and reassembly After AI Nesvizhskii, Mol Cell Proteomics (2005) 4: 1419-40.

  11. Database search overview Eng et al (1994) J. Amer. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 5: 976-989. Yates et al (1995) Anal. Chem. 67: 1426-1436.

  12. Emulating proteases in silico N Edwards and R Lippert. Lecture Notes In Computer Science (2002) 2452: 68-81.

  13. Dynamic PTMs grow search space Because multiple PTMs may be in each peptide, adding PTMs to a search creates an exponential cost. Here, three sites lead to eight PTM variants. CASA1_BOVIN

  14. Peptide mass filter • Sequences outside mass tolerance are not compared. • Many sequences may share a common mass. • Sequences of one mass may score differently. • Sequences of different mass may score the same.

  15. Fragment masses andcharge segregation H+ H+ +2 +3 AA AA AA H AA AA AA OH H+ H+ H+ AA AA AA H AA AA AA OH H+ H+ H+ AA AA AA H AA AA AA OH

  16. Sequest cross correlation • Normalize observed spectrum. • Generate model spectrum for each candidate. • Convert observed and model spectrum to frequency domain by FFT. • Cross-correlate, reporting ratio between zero-offset alignment and nearby alignments. J Eng et al. J. Proteome Res. (2008) 7: 4598-4602. J Eng et al. J Amer. Soc. Mass. Spectrom. (1994) 5: 976-989.

  17. X!Tandem scoring • Predict more accurate fragment intensities • Count matched b ions and matched y ions • Compute dot product of intensities • Generate hyperscore = • Build histogram of scores per spectrum • Report expectation value Craig and Beavis. Rapid Comm. Mass Spectrom. (2003) 17:2310-2316. Fenyö and Beavis. Anal. Chem. (2003) 75: 768-774.

  18. Random match probabilities • Imagine spectrum as jar of 100 black and 900 white marbles (peaks and voids). • Sample 20 marbles for a predicted peaklist, drawing 15 black and 5 white. • Compute probability of random match by hypergeometric distribution: T Fridman. J. Bioinfo. Computat. Bio. (2005) 3: 455-476.

  19. Disassembly and reassembly After AI Nesvizhskii, Mol Cell Proteomics (2005) 4: 1419-40.

  20. The “longest list” problem • Perceived value of early proteomics experiments was linked only to sensitivity. • Systems to evaluate specificity lagged behind, and false positive rates were left unchecked. • Two developments were needed: • Community consensus on reporting standards • New tools for evaluating identification error rates Carr et al. Mol. Cell. Proteomics (2004) 3: 531-533. Taylor et al. Nature Biotech. (2007) 25: 887-893

  21. Strategy I: Target/decoy estimates FDR • Sequence database has equal numbers of target and decoy sequences. • False IDs distribute evenly between target and decoy sequences. • Apply a threshold, and: • False estimate = 2 x [decoy hit count]. • False Discovery Rate (FDR) = False estimate divided by number of passing IDs. Elias and Gygi. Nature Methods (2007) 4: 207-214

  22. Decoys model false distribution • A match to targets is possibly true; a match to decoys is surely false. • As threshold slides to lower scores, more decoys are kept, escalating FDR. • Alternatively, may be used if decoys are excluded from final list. Elias Nat. Methods (2007) 4: 207-214

  23. Strategy II: Peptide Prophet • Estimates correctness probability for individual identifications • Combines multiple subscores from each Sequest identification through DFA • Fits mixed model to observed matches with expectation maximization • A Keller. Anal. Chem. (2002) 74: 5383-5392.

  24. Discriminant Function Analysiscombines sub-scores from Sequest

  25. Mixture Model analysisseparates true and false distributions • Expectation maximization adjusts two curves to fit observed data. • Here, negatives are fit to a gamma distribution and positives to a normal distribution.

  26. Disassembly and reassembly After AI Nesvizhskii, Mol Cell Proteomics (2005) 4: 1419-40.

  27. Why are peptides sharedamong proteins? “Orthologs are direct evolutionary counterparts derived from a common ancestor through vertical descent; whenever we speak of the ‘the same gene in different species,’ we actually mean orthologs. In contrast, paralogs are genes within the same genome that have evolved by duplication.” Koonin. Genome Biology (2001) 2: comment 1005.1-1005.2.

  28. Protein isoforms • A single gene may give rise to many transcripts that overlap for one or more exons. • When isoforms are listed as separate proteins in the FASTA, a peptide may match a shared or distinctive part of a protein sequence. • VEGF incorporates eight exons, where either 6 or 7, both, or neither may be incorporated.

  29. Parsimony • noun: “economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor” • Merriam Webster OnLine • “Plurality ought never be posed without necessity.” • William of Occam

  30. IDPicker • Assemble maximal protein list. • Combine proteins that point to the same peptides, and combine peptides that point to the same proteins. • Find “set cover” by greedy algorithm to pick minimal protein list to explain peptides. B Zhang et al. J. Proteome Res. (2007) 6: 3549-3557. Z Ma et al. J. Proteome Res. (2010) 8: 3872-3881.

  31. Two proteins or seven? • Sample mixes mouse and human proteins. • Isoforms, paralogs, and orthologs complicate protein-peptide map. • Untangling relationships is non-trivial. Data from Broad Institute, CPTAC

  32. Greedy algorithm Data from Broad Institute, CPTAC

  33. ProteinProphet • Combine peptide identification probabilities into protein identification probabilities. • Distribute probability for shared peptides across multiple proteins. • Compute protein probability by subtracting probability that all observed peptides are false from 1. • AI Nesvizhskii. Anal. Chem. (2003) 75: 4646-4658.

  34. Number of Sibling Peptides and Degenerate Peptides • NSP places more confidence in peptides for proteins with abundant supporting evidence. • Degenerate peptides match multiple potential proteins, each associated with a weight. • Expectation maximization determines weights that minimize proteins count and maximize protein probability.

  35. Parsimony reduces protein lists Maximal list Grouping indiscernibles Grouping + parsimony SwissProt HUMAN International Protein Index SwissProt Multispecies Zhang et al. J. Proteome Res. (2007) 6: 3549-57.

  36. Protein FDR is not PSM FDR • PSM FDR fixed at 3% • Two distinct peptides required per protein • True PSMs group together on true proteins. • False PSMs spread across the database. Data from Broad Institute, CPTAC

  37. Takeaway messages • Tandem mass spectrometry produces lists of fragment m/z values and precursor masses. • Database search narrows the set of all possible peptides to plausible candidates. • Controlling peptide and protein FDR is essential for credible, publishable inventories. • Parsimony and scalable filtering are necessary to field modern data sets.

More Related