Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Proteomics. 2018 Jul 30;15:24. doi: 10.1186/s12014-018-9201-5. eCollection 2018.

Comparison of iTRAQ and SWATH in a clinical study with multiple time points.

Author information

1
1Department of Ophthalmology, SILK, The Centre for Proteomics and Personalized Medicine (PPM), Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Arvo Ylpön katu 34, ARVO, PL 100, 33014 Tampere, Finland.
2
2BioMediTech, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
3
3Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
4
4Duke-NUS SRP NBD, Singapore, Singapore.
5
5Department of Ophthalmology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
6
6Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Academic Clinical Research Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
7
7Tays Eye Center, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.

Abstract

Background:

Advances in mass spectrometry have accelerated biomarker discovery in many areas of medicine. The purpose of this study was to compare two mass spectrometry (MS) methods, isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) and sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion spectra (SWATH), for analytical efficiency in biomarker discovery when there are multiple methodological constraints such as limited sample size and several time points for each patient to be analyzed.

Methods:

A total of 140 tear samples were collected from 28 glaucoma patients at 5 time points in a glaucoma drug switch study. Samples were analyzed with iTRAQ and SWATH methods using NanoLC-MSTOF mass spectrometry.

Results:

We discovered that even though iTRAQ is faster than SWATH with respect to analysis time per sample, it loses in sensitivity, reliability and robustness. While SWATH analysis yielded complete data of 456 proteins in all samples, with iTRAQ we were able to quantify 477 proteins in total but on average only 125 proteins were quantified in a sample. 283 proteins were common in the datasets produced by the two methods. Repeatability of the methods was assessed by calculating percent relative standard deviation (% RSD) between replicate MS analyses: SWATH was more repeatable (56% of proteins < 20% RSD), compared to iTRAQ (43% of proteins < 20% RSD). Despite the overall benefits of SWATH, both methods showed less than 1 log fold change difference in the expression of 74% common proteins. In addition, comparison to MS/MS peptide results using 8 isotopically labeled peptide standards, SWATH and iTRAQ showed similar results in terms of accuracy. Moreover, both methods detected similar trends in a longitudinal analysis of protein expression of two known tear biomarkers.

Conclusions:

Overall, we conclude that SWATH should be preferred for biomarker discovery studies when analyzing limited volumes of clinical samples collected at multiple time points.

Trial Registeration:

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at Tampere University Hospital and was registered in EU clinical trials register (EudraCT Number: 2010-021039-14).

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center