Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

The pros and cons of peptide-centric proteomics

Nature Biotechnology volume 28, pages 659–664 (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

Recommendations on how best to exploit the strengths of peptide-centric proteomics and avoid its pitfalls.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: General approach used by peptide-centric MS technologies for the identification of proteins in complex mixtures.
Figure 2: Representation of sequence coverage for a protein identified using a peptide-centric approach.

References

  1. Nedelkov, D. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 10852–10857 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Krishna, R.G. & Wold, F. Adv. Enzymol. 67, 265–298 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brunner, E. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 576–583 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Picotti, P., Aebersold, R. & Domon, B. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 6, 1589–1598 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Carr, S. et al. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 3, 531–533 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Andersen, J.S. & Mann, M. EMBO Rep. 7, 874–879 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilkins, M.R. et al. Proteomics 6, 4–8 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shen, Y. et al. Anal. Chem. 80, 1871–1882 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Keller, A., Nesvizhskii, A.I., Kolker, E. & Aebersold, R. Anal. Chem. 74, 5383–5392 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Elias, J.E. & Gygi, S.P. Nat. Methods 4, 207–214 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nesvizhskii, A.I. & Aebersold, R. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 4, 1419–1440 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Whaley, B. & Caprioli, R.M. Biol. Mass Spectrom. 20, 210–214 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chamrad, D. & Meyer, H.E. Nat. Methods 2, 647–648 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Elias, J.E., Haas, W., Faherty, B.K. & Gygi, S.P. Nat. Methods 2, 667–675 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schmidt, A., Claassen, M. & Aebersold, R. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 13, 510–517 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hackett, M. Proteomics 8, 4618–4623 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Duncan, M.W., Yergey, A.L. & Patterson, S.D. Proteomics 9, 1124–1127 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schulze, W.X. & Usadel, B. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 61, 491–516 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu, H., Sadygov, R.G. & Yates, J.R., III. Anal. Chem. 76, 4193–4201 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Braisted, J.C. et al. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 529 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chelius, D. & Bondarenko, P.V. J. Proteome Res. 1, 317–323 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bondarenko, P.V., Chelius, D. & Shaler, T.A. Anal. Chem. 74, 4741–4749 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Settlage, R.E. et al. PRG-2009: Relative Protein Quantification in a Clinical Matrix (ABRF, Proteomics Research Group, 2009) <http://www.abrf.org/ResearchGroups/Proteomics/EPosters/PRG2009_poster.pdf>.

  24. Picotti, P. et al. Nat. Methods 7, 43–46 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Picotti, P. et al. Nat. Methods 5, 913–914 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Nelson, A. Yergey and I. Krull for their insightful and constructive comments on early drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mark W. Duncan is in the Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes School of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, USA and the Obesity Research Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.,

    Mark W Duncan

  2. Ruedi Aebersold is at ETH Zurich, Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, Zurich, Switzerland.,

    Ruedi Aebersold

  3. Richard M. Caprioli is in the Department of Biochemistry and at the Mass Spectrometry Research Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.,

    Richard M Caprioli

Authors
  1. Mark W Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruedi Aebersold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard M Caprioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard M Caprioli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duncan, M., Aebersold, R. & Caprioli, R. The pros and cons of peptide-centric proteomics. Nat Biotechnol 28, 659–664 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0710-659

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0710-659

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research