4.8 Article

Investigation of Sialylation Aberration in N-linked Glycopeptides By Lectin and Tandem Labeling (LTL) Quantitative Proteomics

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 82, Issue 22, Pages 9201-9210

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac101486d

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [U01 CA085067] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The accuracy in quantitative analysis of N-linked glycopeptides and glycosylation site mapping in cancer is critical to the fundamental question of whether the aberration is due to changes in the total concentration of glycoproteins or variations in the type of glycosylation of proteins. Toward this goal, we developed a lectin-directed tandem labeling (LTL) quantitative proteomics strategy in which we enriched sialylated glycopeptides by SNA, labeled them at the N-terminus by acetic anhydride (H-1(6)/D-2(6)) reagents, enzymatically deglycosylated the differentially labeled peptides in the presence of heavy water ((H2O)-O-18), and performed LC/MS/MS analysis to identify glycopeptides. We successfully used fetuin as a model protein to test the feasibility of this LTL strategy not only to find true positive glycosylation sites but also to obtain accurate quantitative results on the glycosylation changes. Further, we implemented this method to investigate the sialylation changes in prostate cancer serum samples as compared to healthy controls. Herein, we report a total of 45 sialylated glycopeptides and an increase of sialylation in most of the glycoproteins identified in prostate cancer serum samples. Further quantitation of nonglycosylated peptides revealed that sialylation is increased in most of the glycoproteins, whereas the protein concentrations remain unchanged. Thus, LTL quantitative technique is potentially an useful method for obtaining simultaneous unambiguous identification and reliable quantification of N-linked glycopeptides.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available