Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 13926-13948; doi:10.

3390/ijms131113926
OPEN ACCESS

International Journal of

Molecular Sciences
ISSN 1422-0067
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms
Review

The Proteomics Big Challenge for Biomarkers and

New Drug-Targets Discovery
Rocco Savino, Sergio Paduano, Mariaimmacolata Preian and Rosa Terracciano *
Department of Health Sciences, Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics,
University Magna Grcia, Catanzaro, University Campus, Europa Avenue, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy;
E-Mails: [email protected] (R.S.); [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (M.P.)
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];
Tel.: +39-0961-3694085; Fax: +39-0961-3694090.
Received: 24 September 2012; in revised form: 17 October 2012 / Accepted: 25 October 2012 /
Published: 29 October 2012

Abstract: In the modern process of drug discovery, clinical, functional and chemical
proteomics can converge and integrate synergies. Functional proteomics explores and
elucidates the components of pathways and their interactions which, when deregulated,
lead to a disease condition. This knowledge allows the design of strategies to target
multiple pathways with combinations of pathway-specific drugs, which might increase
chances of success and reduce the occurrence of drug resistance. Chemical proteomics, by
analyzing the drug interactome, strongly contributes to accelerate the process of new
druggable targets discovery. In the research area of clinical proteomics, proteome and
peptidome mass spectrometry-profiling of human bodily fluid (plasma, serum, urine and so
on), as well as of tissue and of cells, represents a promising tool for novel biomarker and
eventually new druggable targets discovery. In the present review we provide a survey of
current strategies of functional, chemical and clinical proteomics. Major issues will be
presented for proteomic technologies used for the discovery of biomarkers for early disease
diagnosis and identification of new drug targets.
Keywords: biomarkers; mass spectrometry; MALDI-TOF; proteomics; bodily fluids; tissues

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13927

1. Introduction
Over the past few years, mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics has expanded its interface role
to the broad and diverse research areas of science and technology [13]. Tremendous progress in MS
instrumentation has extended the sensitivity, accuracy and speed of analysis enabling the identification
of thousands of proteins per experiment [1,4]. Beyond identification, MS has also greatly implemented
quantitation issues [5]. These efforts have provided a powerful tool to assess qualitative-quantitative
differences in protein profiles of different samples, in particular diseased vs. normal. Proteomic
approaches have been increasingly applied to the study of clinical samples, such as cell lysates, tissues
or body fluids, with the purpose of discovering novel disease-specific protein biomarkers.
The application of proteomics to the study of human diseases and translation of this technology to
the clinic has lead to a new field defined as clinical proteomics [6]. By assessing protein expression
profiles and post-translational modifications (PTMs) in healthy and diseased, or drug-treated samples,
clinical proteomics has the potential to discover, identify and quantify novel biomarkers to facilitate
the early detection, diagnosis and therapeutic intervention of disease. Found as needles in the
haystack of complex proteome, these biomarkers, as molecular targets, could provide valuable
information for drug discovery.
In addition to drug target identification, MS-based proteomics can be employed to accelerate
several different steps of the drug discovery pipeline. The power of MS-based functional proteomics
has allowed the characterization of cellular, subcellular or organismal proteins providing significant
insight into cell biological processes and signal transduction pathways which are at the basis of the
drug discovery [79].
Recent developments in chemical proteomics have enabled a more direct and unbiased analysis of a
drugs mechanism of action in the context of the proteome as expressed in the target cell or the tissue
of interest [10].
Figure 1. Main applications of functional, chemical and clinical proteomics in
drug discovery.
Clinical
Proteomics

Drug Activity
(Efficacy, resistance, toxicity)

Chemical
Proteomics

Drug-Target
Interaction
(Specificity,
selectivity)

Drug Target
Discovery
Mechanism
of Drug
Action

Multi-target
Drug Discovery

Functional
Proteomics

The various MS-based platforms of clinical, functional and chemical proteomics can converge and
create synergies in the modern process of drug discovery. As shown in Figure 1 the main contributions

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13928

from functional, chemical and clinical proteomics to drug discovery development are underlined. In
the complex drug discovery scenario, the various MS-based proteomic approaches extend beyond the
common objective of drug target discovery, enabling the study of drug-target interaction (selectivity
and specificity), drug activity (efficacy, resistance, toxicity) and elucidating the mechanism of action
of a drug.
2. Applying Functional Proteomics to Biomarkers and Drug-Targets Discovery
The metabolism of a cell or of an entire organism is generally regulated by proteins, which act
individually and, more frequently, in pathways. In particular, the function of a protein can be defined
on the basis of its interactions whereas pathways are cascades of specific protein interactions that are
necessary to activate distinct cellular functions [11]. Genetic mutations or environmental factors
deregulate these pathways, leading to disease conditions. A detailed knowledge of the pathways active
inside the cell and of how they are deranged in a particular pathology is fundamental for drug
discovery as it allows the identification of new drug targets.
Functional proteomics focuses on the generation of information about proteins, such as expression
levels, interacting partners, PTMs and activity, which all contribute to elucidate pathways active inside
the cells and, ultimately, to a functional understanding of a biological system, including man. Before
the advent of proteomics [12], classical biochemical studies delivered us the concept of mostly linear
signal transduction pathway in which a signal (often extracellular) triggers the first member of the
pathway, which in turn activates the second member and so on until the final member is activated,
which is the effector of the biological function (for instance gene transcription, protein synthesis,
regulation of metabolism, survival, proliferation, differentiation, migration and so on). In recent years,
functional proteomics has been used to analyze not only the formation of specific protein-protein
interaction, but also how these interactions lead to the assembly of macromolecular protein complexes
that are regulated by PTMs and which affect pathway function. The emerging concept is that signaling
pathways rely on protein interactions, which often do not form a linear string of events but instead
distribute control through a network. In the analysis of such networks, the contribution of proteomics
has been unparalleled. In fact, in mapping protein interaction networks and pathways by proteomic
technologies, it was soon realized that the pathways and networks are also interconnected at many
different levels [13]. On one hand, such cross-talk is of great biological importance, as it offers a
means of generating functional redundancy, diversity and compensating mechanisms should parts of a
pathway become unavailable. On the other hand, these findings are of utmost importance for
the pharmaceutical industry, as they predict that it may be quite difficult to interrupt signaling
networks by interventions targeting a single entity, thus furnishing an elegant molecular explanation to
the clinical experience that the efficacy of cancer therapies based on a single drug is, with very few
exceptions, quite limited [14]. This scenario also suggests a multi-target drug discovery therapeutic
approach (Figure 1), which pharmaceutical companies considered so far counterintuitive, that is
combining inhibitors of the first elements of a pathway (for instance a receptor) with inhibitors of
downstream elements of the pathway (one or more of the effectors) to boost drug efficacy and prevent
treatment resistance.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13929

Functional proteomics has been widely applied to mapping signaling pathways in a number of
pathologies and the vast literature published in the last ten years exceeds the scope of a single review.
Therefore, only a few examples will be illustrated to describe some of the new paradigms in signaling
networks that owe their discovery to proteomics.
The first step in defining a pathway or a network is to elucidate protein-protein interactions. Stable
protein assemblies function as molecular machines in all cellular processes, from DNA replication
and hnRNA splicing in the nucleus to protein degradation in the proteasome and ribosomal mRNA
translation in the cytoplasm. The application of MS to this kind of biological problems was pioneered
by the identification of the proteins of the yeast U1 snRNP in 1997 [15]. Since then the analysis of
protein complexes has uncovered countless important global biological phenomena, including those
which cause a pathological state when deregulated. Although proteomics has been very successful
at determining the composition of complexes, the detailed study of binary protein interactions is
still surprisingly difficult by proteomic methods. In part, this results from the general challenge
of purifying protein pairs in the presence of other interacting proteins. As a result, binary protein
interactions are still mostly identified by the yeast two-hybrid system, which has been already
reviewed in a very clear manner for a readership not composed by molecular biologists [16]. Although
this classical molecular biology approach has been automated to enable systematic proteomic scale
studies of transient protein-protein interactions [17], the yeast two-hybrid system is not without issues
as the interaction of two exogenous proteins in a yeast nucleus can lead to various artifacts. Proteomics
technologies are more suited to study protein complexes by combining affinity tagging of proteins
using genetic or molecular biology techniques and the speed and sensitivity of MS. Commonly used
tags are the Flag peptide (DYKDDDDK or MDYKDDDDK), the Myc peptide (EEQKLISEEDL) [18]
hemagglutinin, streptavidin, green fluorescent protein (GFP) and TAP (tandem affinity purification: a
fusion cassette encoding calmodulin-binding peptide, a tobacco etch virus protease cleavage site and
Protein A), and combinations thereof [19]. Tags allow efficient purification of stable protein
complexes by sequential pulldown-elution-pulldown protocols [20]. The systematic application of
these methodologies have enabled the definition of protein complexes in several model organisms
among which the most thoroughly studied is yeast, whose proteome is organized in roughly 580
complexes each composed of 520 members [2123]. Given the size of the complexes, it is rather
obvious that each protein in the supramolecular structure cannot physically contact all the other
proteins, and this is indeed the limit of the currently used proteomic pulldown experiments. In other
words, we have all the components but no direct information on the interacting partner. The picture is
further complicated by the fact that the structure of a complex can change dynamically over time, and
certain complexes may only be necessary for a limited time to activate their downstream signal
transduction pathways [14]. In order to study the dynamics of individual protein complexes other
biochemical and cell biological techniques have to complement the proteomic approaches once the
proteomic experiment has established the protein components of a complex [24], as exemplified in the
definition of the TNF/NF-B signal transduction pathway described below.
The next level of cellular organization is provided by pathways and networks, in which proteins and
protein complexes relay signals from the extracellular space into the cell or distribute information
within a cell and its compartments. However, many more proteins are involved in networks than in
typical protein complexes. One of the first human networks relevant for drug discovery defined with

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13930

this approach was the TNF /NF-B signal transduction pathway [25]. It has long been known
that the pro-inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor (TNF)- triggers a signaling cascade,
converging on the activation of the transcription factor NF-B, which forms the basis for numerous
physiological and pathological processes. By using a combination of technologies from the fields
of biochemistry (tandem affinity purification), proteomics (liquid-chromatography tandem mass
spectrometry LC-MS/MS), bioinformatics (network analysis) and molecular biology (directed
functional perturbation studies using RNA interference), 221 molecular associations and 80 previously
unknown interactors were identified, including 10 new functional modulators of the pathway. The
definition of such a network may facilitate the identification of new drug targets and to choose the
most effective and specific intervention strategy [25]. Even more paradigmatic are the proteomic
studies which defined in detail the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) network, which is altered
in various human cancers [14], and the breakpoint cluster region (BCR)-ABL1 network, responsible
with few exception for the development of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) [26]. All these
studies are summarized in an excellent, recent review [14], which clearly explains, among other
examples, the molecular events at the basis of the clinical success of the BCR-ABL1 inhibitor imatinib
(Gleevec, Novartis) [27] and suggests how functional proteomic studies can be used to determine drug
action and predict potential side effects of the second-generation BCR-ABL1 inhibitor dasatinib
(Sprycel; Bristol-Meyers Squibb) [14].
Studies in the field of functional proteomics led to the publication of hundreds of articles in the last
few years, making an impressive amount of data available for drug discovery in a variety of
pathological conditions, including liver cancer [28], hepatic injury [29], blood transfusion related
diseases [30,31], neurodegenerative diseases [32], genetics diseases including gene therapy
applications [33,34], endocrinology-related diseases [35] and male infertility [36,37]. A complete list
of the diseases in which functional proteomics may boost drug discovery is outside of the scope of
this review.
3. Applying Chemical Proteomics to Biomarkers and Drug-Targets Discovery
Chemical proteomics is a multidisciplinary research area integrating biochemistry and cell biology
with organic synthesis and MS. The recent developments in affinity-based enrichment techniques in
combination with MS have enabled the direct determination of protein binding profiles of small molecule
drugs under more physiological conditions. In this context, chemical proteomics represents one of the
most direct approaches to screen for drugprotein interactions [38,39]. One possible strategy typically
involves the immobilization of a (chemically modified) drug to a solid-state support (for example,
beads), either directly or by using a flexible linker. These functionalized beads are then incubated with
a tissue extract or a cell lysate to allow proteins to bind to the drug. Finally, interacting proteins are
eluted under either native or denaturing conditions, and they are digested and analyzed by MS.
The major drawback encountered in these affinity-based enrichment approaches is the presence in
the pulled down extract of non specifically bound proteins. Among these, a large number of proteins
which bind non-specifically to most conventional affinity matrix have been recently identified [40]. It
is therefore strongly suggested to perform appropriate negative control experiments to distinguish
nonspecific interactions from specific interactions.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13931

The application of an inactivated affinity matrix and/or the preparation of an immobilized

inactive drug derivative serves as an important factor in establishing whether proteins are
non-specifically bound.
Another strategy is based on pretreatment of a cell lysate with free drug in a parallel experiment.
This strategy allows the drug to interact with the target protein(s) before binding to the affinity matrix,
so that comparative analysis of the parallel pulldowns reveals specific drug-binding proteins [41].
Such an approach becomes particularly powerful when combined with quantitative MS
methods [39,42].
An example of the above-mentioned strategies which can be used to decrease the presence of
non-specifically bound proteins is the recent identification of the interactome of the PDE5 inhibitors
PF-4540124 [38], and PF-3717842 [43]. This approach shows how chemical proteomics might
be used to profile the biochemical space (interactome) of small molecule inhibitors. Moreover,
compound-centric chemical proteomics, as this approach also been called [44], allows the
identification of binders of unexpected biochemical classes, including proteins without enzymatic
function, and can therefore be used to find entirely novel targets [4547].
A very relevant example of the strategy described above [47], was the assessment of the specificity
profiles of the previously mentioned block busted drug BCR-ABL1 inhibitor imatinib and of two
second-generation drugs: nilotinib and dastinib. These three drugs in a linkable version were analyzed
for their target spectrum in affinity precipitation experiments. A very strong binding of immobilized
imatinib to the quinone oxidoreductase NQO2 was detected, then confirmed by crystallographic
studies. Instead, DDR1 and ARG were identified as novel interactors of the imatinib close analog
nilotinib. Finally, dasatinib (Sprycel; Bristol-Meyers Squibb), originally developed as a dual
specificity ABL- and SCR-family kinase inhibitor, was found to interact with up to 24 protein
kinases [10]. Considering the market share of these three drugs, the studies reported above and in the
previous section [14,27] are certainly major findings of proteomics in drug studies.
Another important tool in the field of chemical proteomics is based on carefully designed chemical
probes, also defined activity-based probes, that can specifically target diverse sets of enzyme
families and provides direct information about the activation state of identified proteins. A chemical
probe contains three parts, a reactive ligand that can covalently bind to the target protein/enzyme, a
linker region modulating the reactivity and specificity of the reactive ligand, and a tag for
identification and purification of the target protein/enzyme. Only active enzymes of the targeted family
will react with the ligand and will therefore be identified [48].
This method can lead to the identification of new proteins with the respective biochemical activity,
thus allowing the identification of new drug targets. Alternatively, it can be applied to determine the
selectivity profile of drugs targeting an enzyme family. This can be done via pre-treatment of the lysate
with the drug of interest (which prevents the reactive ligand of the probe from covalently binding the
drug-interacting enzyme) and subsequent labeling and identifying of the remaining enzymes using
appropriate reactive probes.
Several kinds of chemical probes have been used in proteomic studies, for a multitude of enzyme
classes such as hydrolases, proteases, kinases, phosphatases, histone deacetyilases, glycosidases and
oxidoreductases [49].

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13932

Therefore, chemical proteomics plays a significant role in drug discovery as it becomes possible not
only to identify new drug targets, but also to profile the selectivity of drugs and their mechanisms of
action systematically in relevant tissues (Figure 1).
In particular, the identification of all the proteins which interact with a given drug in a cell or tissue
might help predict or elucidate the side effects of that drug, which is of fundamental interest for the
pharmaceutical companies.
Excellent recent reviews on comprehensive potential applications of chemical proteomics in the
drug discovery process are available [10,44,50].
As an example of a chemical proteomics approach which can give an incredible input to
targeted-drug discovery we report chemical proteomic strategies for the enrichment and quantification
of the accessible vascular proteome. In fact, an important challenge for novel targets discovery is to
identify drug targets which are readily accessible to treatment in a diseased tissue (for example
tumoral tissue).
Due to the poor selectivity of most conventional pharmaceuticals used in cancer therapy,
ligand-based vascular targeting strategies open the horizon towards the development of more
selective and better tolerated anti-cancer drugs.
In this context, the in vivo/ex vivo biotinylation technique represents an elegant method for the
identification of proteins which are readily accessible from the vasculature. This technique relies on
the perfusion of animals [51,52] or surgically resected organs [53,54] with reactive ester derivatives
of biotin. Biotinylated proteins are recovered from normal and tumor tissues by capture on
streptavidin-sepharose, after lysis in presence of strong detergents. After on-resin digestion of
biotinylated protein, resulting peptides are subjected to comparative proteomic analysis, which allows
the identification and the relative quantification of vascular proteins in normal organs and in tumors,
thus making the discovery of accessible novel drug targets possible [55,56]. Other strategies suitable
for the discovery of vascular-accessible tumor markers such as cell surface capturing and silica
coating have been extensively and recently reviewed [57].
4. Applying Clinical Proteomics to Biomarkers and Drug-Targets Discovery
The proteome records the flow of information that starting within the cells, through the intercellular
protein network, goes beyond the extracellular microenviroment up to come to the blood
macroenviroment [58]. Accordingly, the proteome may reflect immediate and characteristic changes in
response to disease processes and external stimulation. Like the proteome, the proteolytic degradation
products of the proteome, the so-called low-molecular-weight (LMW) proteome, or peptidome, may
also have the potential to contain disease-specific information [59,60]. The peptidome is also referred
to endogenous peptides which have very specific functions as mediators and indicators of biological
processes, which play important roles as messengers, e.g., as hormones, growth factors, and cytokines,
and thus have a high impact on health and diseases [61]. By the means of proteomic tools such as MS,
it is possible to qualitatively and quantitatively reveal molecular profiles contained in healthy or
clinical samples. Consequently, MS technologies offer the opportunity to screen and discovery
simultaneously multiple biomarkers, which consist of a pattern of up- or down-regulated molecules
(proteins, peptides, metabolites, organic molecules) representative of a given (healthy/disease)

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13933

condition. Basically, clinical proteomics covers all MS-based preclinical and basic science studies
aimed at discovering and understanding the role of proteins in pathological processes in order to
facilitate the early diagnosis of disease, the prognosis prediction, the identification of new therapeutic
targets and the evaluation of treatment response [6,58,62]. So the application of proteomics tools in the
field of medicine may accelerate the understanding of diseases and may facilitate the discovery of new
drug targets and diagnostic markers. As outlined in Figure 2 the MS-based biomarker discovery in
clinical proteomics could be addressed by three main approaches: (i) comparative analysis of
molecular signatures from enriched or fractionated subproteomes from healthy/diseased or drug
untreated/treated bio-samples by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-Of-Flight Mass
Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) or Surface-Enhanced Laser Desorption/Ionization time-of-flight mass
spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS); (ii) High Performance Liquid Chromatography coupled to
electrospray ionization (ESI) tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS) for both quantitation and
identification of protein found differently expressed between healthy/diseased or drug untreated/treated
samples; (iii) Mono-or bi-dimensional gel electrophoresis (1DE or 2DE) followed by identification by
MALDI-TOF MS or LC-MS/MS of bands or spots in which quantitative variations of protein
expression are observed between healthy/diseased or drug-treated/untreated samples. All the above
mentioned state-of-art strategies are those commonly followed in the current clinical proteomic studies
even if the rapidly evolving MS and proteomic-related technologies are able to provide new
forthcoming platforms which can offer novel modus operandi in this field [63,64].
The first approach was pioneered by Liotta and Petricoin [65] by SELDI-TOF MS-based pattern
recognition in protein profiles from serum; despite initial debates and controversies [66,67], this
approach has then gathered great interest and consensus in the proteomic community [6874]. So one
promising field of clinical proteomics is nowadays represented by SELDI and more importantly
MALDI-TOF MS-based approaches for profiling clinical samples. This strategy may appear as a direct
avenue for biomarker discovery because it consists in the direct analysis of low molecular weight
metabolites, endogenous peptides and proteins in readily accessible bodily fluids or, more difficult to
obtain, in sample tissues. However, the complexity and high dynamic range of such biological samples
(plasma, serum, induced sputum, saliva, synovial fluid and so on) make the characterization of
metabolites as well as endogenous peptides and proteins a challenging task. Salts and abundant protein
components (e.g., albumin in serum or plasma; mucins in induced sputum, hyaluronic acid polymers in
synovial fluid) typically interfere with proteomic, peptidomic and metabolomic analysis. As a
consequence, a sample pretreatment is required before MS analysis. In SELDI-TOF MS this issue is
addressed by sample fractionation on a chip covered by specific chromatographic surfaces. Proteins
from row samples are allowed to bind to the surface, which is then washed to remove salts and
unbound species and the corresponding protein profile is then generated by the mass spectrometer
directly from the chip [75]. When MALDI-TOF is used, the pre-fractionation has to be performed
separately. The off-line fractionation and/or enrichment of the proteome of clinical sample before
MALDI-TOF MS analysis may be pursued by different procedures. In concomitance to well-known
magnetic beads [7680], or classical solid phase extraction procedures [81], innovative platforms and
devices for selective capture of peptides, phosphopeptides and polypeptides from bodily fluids and
tissues, have been recently proved to be very successful [61,82,83]. Despite its unquestionable
throughput, SELDI-TOF does not offer the possibility to independently optimize sample protocols or

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13934

preparation aimed at reducing complexity or enriching more in depth a particular sub-proteome; these
possibilities are instead granted by the MALDI-TOF technology.
Figure 2. Biomarker discovery approaches in clinical proteomics. Samples (normal vs.
diseased or drug-treated vs. untreated) are fractionated and then Mass Spectrometry
(MS)-analyzed according to three main strategies. (a) Molecular profiling aimed to the
generation and comparative analysis of fingerprints between healthy/diseased or
drug-treated/untreated biospecimen. (b) High Performance Liquid Chromatography
coupled to Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for both quantitation and identification of
protein. (c) Mono-or bi-dimensional Gel Electrophoresis (1DE or 2DE) followed by
identification of bands or spots in which quantitative variations of protein expression
are observed.
MALDI-TOF or SELDI-TOF
profiling
Sample
fractionation/enrichment

1-D or 2-D HPLC separation

NORMAL DISEASED

or

(b)

SCX

RP

1-D or 2-D GEL separation

UNTREATEDTREATED

MS/MS
Identification& Quantitation
Relative abundance

(a)

Light (disease)
Heavy (normal)

m/z

overexpressed

downregulated

(c)
overexpressed

downregulated

In gel digestion
&
MS identification

Panels of peptides of potential diagnostic importance present in blood plasma/serum have been
produced for diseases such as gastric cancer [84], ovarian cancer [85], colorectal cancer [86],
Alzheimers disease [87], oral cancer [88], nasopharyngeal tumor [89], asthma [77], brain tumor [90],
multiple sclerosis [91] and renal cell carcinoma [92]. Furthermore, to give such an example of
potential markers of pathology found in other bodily fluids such as urine, we can cite the recent study
by Maini et al. [93] on high altitude hypoxia as a model of the pathophysiology of diseases related to
tissue hypoxia. Other potential peptide biomarkers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have
found in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid [94] or in induced sputum [95].

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13935

In the second approach, the classical bottom-up procedure, digested peptides of protein extracts
from bio-specimen are fractionated by mono-dimensional (reverse phase) or bi-dimensional
(strong-cation-exchange followed by reverse phase) LC and then identified by MS/MS. By the mean of
differential isotopic labeling procedure of the samples it is also possible to accurately quantify
differential protein expression in different samples (in clinical proteomics healthy/disease or
drug-treated/untreated).
ICAT (Isotope Coded Affinity Tags) [96], iTRAQ (isobaric Tags for Relative and Absolute
Quantitation) [97] and SILAC (stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture) are the acronyms
of most common MS accurate quantitative strategies used in proteomic workflows for biomarker
discovery [98]. Depending by the nature of labeling, MS-based quantitation may be performed at MS
(signals differing by a specific m/z shift depending by the isotopic labeling such as ICAT or SILAC) or
at MS/MS level (isobaric labeling such as iTRAQ). For instance, in SILAC quantitation is performed
in full MS and identification in MS/MS, while in iTRAQ the identification and quantitation are
performed in MS/MS. An excellent example of application of these labeling quantitative approaches is
given by a recent study on differential proteins expression in the proteome of vascular smooth muscle
cells (A7r5) when treated with individual (R) or (S) enantiomers of the beta(1)-adrenergic antagonist,
atenolol. This investigation was assessed by iTRAQ-coupled to two-dimensional LC-MS/MS,
revealing that some calcium-binding proteins were down-regulated and a series of enzymes involved
NAD+/NADH metabolism were up-regulated in cells incubated with the S-enantiomer relative to the
cells incubated with the R-enantiomer. The Authors also demonstrated lower intracellular Ca2+
concentration and a higher ratio of NAD+/NADH in A7r5 cells incubated with the S-enantiomer of
atenolol. As Ca2+ signals transduced by calcium-binding proteins act on cytoskeletal proteins, which
play a fundamental role in the regulation of the cytoskeletal modeling, the results presented provide a
potential molecular explanation of the therapeutic effects of atenolol [99]. The above-cited study also
highlights the expanding contribution of proteomics in assessing the role of chirality in drug action.
For a more extensive description of this topic we recommend a recent review by Sui et al. [100].
Although labeling experiments gain a precise quantification [101], these MS-quantitative strategies
increase the costs and the complexity of the entire experiment and, as a consequence, the low sample
throughput is a great limitation for clinical proteomics studies. In this direction, the so-called
label-free strategies [102] appear to be more effective for large-scale biomarker discovery in
complex samples. The examples reported below demonstrate not only the efforts to build bridges
between high-performance proteomics and clinical routine, but also emphasize how discovery-based
proteomics analyses of clinical samples allow the identification of new potential biomarkers and
therapeutic targets in different kind of diseases.
A label free approach based on nano-LC/MS was performed by Nanni et al. for quantitative serum
peptidomics analysis in Crohns disease patients [103]. In another study protein extracts from normal
lung and non-small cell lung cancer tissues were digested and subsequently enriched in
phosphopeptide content. LC-MS/MS, label-free quantitative and bioinformatic analysis provided
dozens of differential markers able to discriminate between normal and tumor tissue [104]. Very
recently, researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center have applied the label-free
technology in order to distinguish, on a quantitative-proteomic basis, known classes of leukemias:
acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL). Proteins were extracted from

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13936

blasts derived from four patients with AML, five patients with ALL and, as control, from CD34+ cells
purified from six healthy donors and mononuclear cells (MNC) from two healthy donors. Proteins
were analyzed by LC-MS/MS and quantified with a label-free alignment-based algorithm developed in
the Authors laboratory. The four proteins best able to distinguish CD34+, AML, and ALL were all
either known biomarkers or proteins whose biological functions are consistent with their ability to
distinguish the classes examined. So, this approach could represent a very promising strategy for
classification of different classes of pathology [105].
Less traditional but more exclusive is the use of the top-down procedure in which, contrary to the
bottom-up strategy, it is possible to analyze intact proteins (which are not enzymatically digested
prior to MS) by the mean of FT-ICR MS (Fourier transform-ion cyclotron resonance) which achieves
mass resolution (100,000) and a mass accuracy (1 ppm) superior than other MS platform. In this case
this platform is well suited for detection of protein PTMs [106] which are not easily detected by
standard protein profiling techniques.
The third approach is outlined in Figure 2 panel (c). Differently expressed bands from 1-D or spots
from 2-D gels in the two state (disease/normal) are excised and than the proteins are in-gel digested
and the resulting peptides are identified by MS. Although less used than the other two approaches
described above, 1-D and 2-D GE have recently given an important contribution in the field of
biomarker discovery. In the case of 1-D GE we report the work of Berardi et al. in which four proteins,
found to be overexpressed in endothelial cells (ECs) of patients with active MM (MMECs), were
in-gel digested and identified by MS as filamin A, vimentin, -crystallin B and 14-3-3/ protein, not
yet linked to overangiogenic phenotype. Further analyses demonstrated the role of the newly identified
proteins in the overangiogenic phenotype of MMECs, suggesting that they could be new targets for the
antiangiogenic management of MM patients [107].
In a retrospective study focused on a population of patients with ductal pN0M0 tumors, a
2D-electrophoresis (2-DE) proteomic approach was used to identify novel biomarkers in node-negative
breast cancers. A subset of 20 patients who developed metastases were compared to another subset
(21 patients) in whom no metastatic relapse took place. The differential analysis of more than
2000 spots in 2-DE gels allowed the identification of 13 differentially expressed proteins, which were
confirmed by western blotting. In the subset of patients who developed metastases, two proteins,
GPDA and FABP4, were down-regulated whereas all the others were up-regulated [108]. A recent
improvement in 2-DE technology has been achieved in 2D-DIGE (differential in gel electrophoresis)
which substantially increases gel reproducibility allowing a better quantitative analysis by the use of
fluorescent dyes. Proteins from different disease states are labeled with different dyes then the samples
are combined and protein separated by 2DE. The gel is finally scanned at different wavelengths thus
generating different images. The quantitative analysis of differentially expressed spots is performed by
the superimposition of the images using specialized software packages. In order to search for
identification of differentially expressed protein in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the most common
neoplasm affecting the adult kidney, by a 2-D DIGE followed by MS, 20 RCC tissues were compared
with matched adjacent normal kidney cortex (ANK). After gel analysis, 2500 differentially expressed
protein spots were excised and a total of 100 proteins were identified by MS, 23 and 77 of which were,
respectively, over- and down-regulated in RCC as compared to ANK. The DIGE data were also
confirmed by immunoblotting for the identified proteins [109].

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13937

Limitations of Comparative Profiling Strategies

It is now worth highlighting some points which must be careful considered in clinical proteomics
studies. Many factors may affect the reproducibility of data generated and extracted from mass spectra
(m/z, peak intensity, peak area) which are used for discriminatory pattern recognition between normal
vs. diseased or drug-treated sample. First of all, variability may affect clinical sample collection and
handling: an example is given by blood processing for serum or plasma, or the use of protease inhibitor
cocktails, or storage conditions applied to a date clinical sample [110]. Another source of variability
resides in sample preparation and/or fractionation and in all pre-analytical steps and enrichment
strategies used in combination with MS-analysis [111,112]. Remarkably, the MALDI-matrix
application and the instrumental settings as well as the bioinformatics analysis could all be source of
variable fluctuations [113]. In addition to the above listed technical limitations, it is also important to
consider the patients/controls individual variability. Since a variety of factors may influence each
individual profile, we cannot assume that drug responses will be similar in healthy or diseased
group [114]. Another important factor which cannot be underestimated is the time between drug
treatment/administration and analysis. In fact if the drug does not reach the pharmacokinetic steady
state, the protein profiles changes may not correlate to the drug treatment/administration [115].
Therefore, an in depth assessment of proteomic variability is mandatory for a better understanding and
data interpretation of clinical proteomics studies. In this direction, procedures for quality control of
proteome profiles have been recently suggested [116]. Additionally, recommendations concerning
minimal information about a proteomic experiment have been released by the Human Proteome
Organization in order to increase the independent reproducibility of published data [117]. One of the
limitations of biomarkers and drug-target discovery studies performed so far is that very often the
putative biomarker/drug-target was searched in a single tissue/body fluid. This was due to the limited
output of the classical biochemical strategies. The high-throughput, which is made available by the
proteomics approaches, now allows a multi-tissue/body fluids research strategy. In fact, by searching
for a biomarker/drug-target in multiple biological samples, both systemic (serum, plasma, urine),
proximal (induced sputum, nipple aspirate, saliva, synovial fluid, etc.) and in situ (target tissue), it
should be possible to maximize the success rate. Unfortunately, few studies [118120] of this kind
have been published so far; however, it may be expected that many more will appear in the next future.
Systematic review of the published results will then help pharmaceutical companies and clinicians in
the decision making process.
Last but not least, individual variability may constitute a big hurdle in MS-based disease biomarker
discovery, in particular for pathologies with multifactorial etiology such as cardiovascular disease,
cancer or diabetes, leading to false discovery when small patient cohorts are assayed. In fact,
differential protein expression detected by proteomics approaches may be due to the interindividual
variability in protein abundance rather to the pathology examined. Therefore, in order to overcome this
problem, it is imperative to work with a large number of patients and the putative markers arising from
the discovery phase have to be validated by specific and quantitative measurements [121].
The validation of candidate biomarkers is a critical issue in the discovery pipeline. In fact, if on one
hand we are witnessing a constant increase of the number of the putative MS-based biomarkers, on the
other hand, a limited number of specific antibodies are currently available in the traditional

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13938

antibody-based approaches used for validation. However, among the new emergent MS-based
validation assays, stable isotope dilution-multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) [122] and stable isotope
standards with capture by anti-peptide antibodies (SISCAPA) [123] seem to address the need for a
higher throughput of biomarker validation. MRM-MS for protein assays is based on measurement of
tryptic (proteotypic) peptides of the protein/biomarker candidates. In particular the selection of
35 peptides per protein is performed and the corresponding synthesized stable isotope-labeled
peptides are used as internal standards. Specific fragment-ion signals derived from the endogenous
unlabeled species are compared to those from the exogenous labeled peptides and from the ratio of the
peak area it is possible to obtain an accurate measure of the concentration of the corresponding protein.
The SISCAPA assay is based on the use of antipeptide antibodies against the selected proteotypic
peptides from the proteins of interest. Indeed, antipeptide antibodies suitable for the SISCAPA assay
are much easier to obtain as compared to equivalent antibodies directed against the corresponding
full-length proteins [121]. The method utilizes antibody-nanoaffinity columns to enrich for these
specific peptides, as well as stable-isotope-labeled internal standards of the same sequence, which have
been spiked into the sample. The relative amounts of stable isotope labeled standard peptide added to
the sample and the selected peptide are measured by MRM. Thus, the MS serves as the second
antibody. Due to its multiplexing capability, MRM is ideal for high-throughput multiplexed
quantification of a significant number of proteins. In fact, this methodology allows to quantify more
than 100 different proteins in a single MRM LC-MS run [124]. However, without depletion of high
abundance proteins and prefractionation, LC-MRM-based assays are generally only able to quantify
moderate-abundance proteins in the low microgramme per milliliter concentration range using
conventional platforms [125]. For this reason, many efforts, recently and extensively reviewed by Shi
and colleagues, have been done to address the low sensitivity issue in MRM-based assays [126]. It is
worth mentioning the limit of quantitation in the 50100 pg/mL range achieved by using a magnetic
bead-based platform for high throughput sample processing implemented in a multiplexed SISCAPA
assay [127]. Also, recent developments in MS technology (outside the scope of this review) such as the
use of ion funnels [128] or the field asymmetric waveform ion mobility MS [129], by providing an
higher signal intensity and resolving power respectively, may increase MRM sensitivity. Other
progress in sample prefractionation/enrichment strategies as well as advances in MS instrumentation
could allow to MRM-based assays to become the golden gate which links biomarker discovery to
clinical use.
5. Conclusions
The escalation of MS technologies and related functional, chemical and clinical proteomics
approaches could greatly impact the biomarker and drug discovery process.
Functional proteomics approaches explore and elucidate the components of pathways and their
interactions which, when deregulated, lead to a disease condition. The detailed knowledge of how
pathways and networks are deranged may help in identifying new drug-targets.
Chemical proteomics strategies aiming at the comprehension of drug interactome can contribute to
optimization of lead compounds improving drug selectivity and specificity, thus reducing side effects.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13939

The application of MS-based proteomics to the study of human diseases and their translation to the
clinic has opened new horizons for medicine.
The comparison of protein expression between healthy individuals and patients is one of the most
promising tools for biomarker identification. The main requirements for a platform to be used in
clinical proteomic studies aiming at biomarker discovery are: sensitivity, accuracy, reproducibility and
high sample throughput. Moreover, it must provide extensive proteome coverage of complex samples
in order to allow the detection of proteins whose concentration levels vary by several orders of
magnitude. So far, many proteomic technologies have been employed in the field of protein biomarker
discovery. High-throughput MS-based profiling strategies for clinical samples such as tissue and
bodily fluids present a direct avenue for biomarker discovery. MALDI-TOF and SELDI have recently
captured significant attention for the rapid determination of molecular masses and the ability of
screening with high-throughput small amounts of clinical samples.
Biomarkers long journey from the bench to the clinic is at its beginnings, but the rapidly
developing MS-based proteomics technology could accelerate this process.
The sensitivity of modern mass spectrometers strongly depends on the type of instrument and it is
constantly improving with time. Nevertheless, improving selectivity of the analysis rather than MS
sensitivity could possibly be an additional way of looking into low-abundance species. In this respect,
the possibility to develop devices allowing selective isolation of LMW peptides prior to MS analysis
may accelerate the discovery rate of potential biomarkers and drug targets.
Acknowledgments
Mariaimmacolata Preian has been supported by a fellowship of the Ph.D. Programme in Molecular
Oncology, Experimental Immunology and Development of Innovative Therapies.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.

Angel, T.E.; Aryal, U.K.; Hengel, S.M.; Baker, E.S.; Kelly, R.T.; Robinson, E.W.; Smith, R.D.
Mass spectrometry based proteomics: Existing capabilities and future directions. Chem. Soc. Rev.
2012, 41, 39123928.
Au, C.E.; Bell, A.W.; Gilchrist, A.; Hiding, J.; Nilsson, T.; Bergeron, J.J. Organellar proteomics
to create the cell map. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2007, 19, 376385.
Collins, S.R.; Kemmeren, P.; Zhao, X.C.; Greenblatt, J.F.; Spencer, F.; Holstege, F.C.;
Weissman, J.S.; Krogan, N.J. Toward a comprehensive atlas of the physical interactome of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2007, 6, 439450.
Aebersold, R.; Mann, M. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature 2003, 422, 198207.
Pan, S.; Aebersold, R.; Chen, R.; Rush, J.; Goodlett, D.R.; McIntosh, M.W.; Zhang, J.;
Brentnall, T.A. Mass spectrometry based targeted protein quantification: Methods and
applications. J. Proteome Res. 2009, 8, 787797.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

6.
7.
8.

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.
17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

13940

Beretta, L. Proteomics from the clinical perspective: Many hopes and much debate. Nat. Methods
2007, 4, 785786.
Kcher, T.; Superti-Furga, G. Mass spectrometry-based functional proteomics: From molecular
machines to protein networks. Nat. Methods 2007, 4, 807815.
Major, M.B.; Camp, N.D.; Berndt, J.D.; Yi, X.; Goldenberg, S.J.; Hubbert, C.; Biechele, T.L.;
Gingras, A.C.; Zheng, N.; Maccoss, M.J.; et al. Wilms tumor suppressor WTX negatively
regulates WNT/-catenin signaling. Science 2007, 316, 10431046.
Tedford, N.C.; Hall, A.B.; Graham, J.R.; Murphy, C.E.; Gordon, N.F.; Radding, J.A.
Quantitative analysis of cell signaling and drug action via mass spectrometry-based systems level
phosphoproteomics. Proteomics 2009, 9, 14691487.
Bantscheff, M.; Scholten, A.; Heck, A.J. Revealing promiscuous drug-target interactions by
chemical proteomics. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14, 10211029.
Alberts, B. The cell as a collection of protein machines: Preparing the next generation of
molecular biologists. Cell 1998, 92, 291294.
Wasinger, V.C.; Harris, R.; Williams, K.L.; Humphery-Smith, I. Progress with gene-product
mapping of the Mollicutes: Mycoplasma genitalium. Electrophoresis 1995, 16, 10901094.
Kolch, W. Meaningful relationships: The regulation of the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway by
protein interactions. Biochem. J. 2000, 351, 289305.
Kolch, W.; Pitt, A. Functional proteomics to dissect tyrosine kinase signalling pathways in
cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10, 618629.
Neubauer, G.; Gottschalk, A.; Fabrizio, P.; Sraphin, B.; Lhrmann, R.; Mann, M. Identification
of the proteins of the yeast U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein complex by mass spectrometry.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 385390.
Figeys, D. Proteomics approaches in drug discovery. Anal. Chem. 2002, 74, 413A419A.
Rual, J.F.; Venkatesan, K.; Hao, T.; Hirozane-Kishikawa, T.; Dricot, A.; Li, N.; Berriz, G.F.;
Gibbons, F.D.; Dreze, M.; Ayivi-Guedehoussou, N.; et al. Towards a proteome-scale map of the
human protein-protein interaction network. Nature 2005, 437, 11731178.
Paonessa, G.; Graziani, R.; De Serio, A.; Savino, R.; Ciapponi, L.; Lahm, A.; Salvati, A.L.;
Toniatti, C.; Ciliberto, G. Two distinct and independent sites on IL-6 trigger gp 130 dimer
formation and signalling. EMBO J. 1995, 14, 19421951.
Mallick, P.; Kuster, B. Proteomics: A pragmatic perspective. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28,
695709.
Brckstmmer, T.; Bennett, K.L.; Preradovic, A.; Schtze, G.; Hantschel, O.; Superti-Furga, G.;
Bauch, A. An efficient tandem affinity purification procedure for interaction proteomics in
mammalian cells. Nat. Methods 2006, 3, 10131019.
Gavin, A.C.; Bsche, M.; Krause, R.; Grandi, P.; Marzioch, M.; Bauer, A.; Schultz, J.;
Rick, J.M.; Michon, A.M.; Cruciat, C.M.; et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by
systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 2002, 415, 141147.
Gavin, A.C.; Aloy, P.; Grandi, P.; Krause, R.; Boesche, M.; Marzioch, M.; Rau, C.; Jensen, L.J.;
Bastuck, S.; Dmpelfeld, B.; et al. Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell
machinery. Nature 2006, 440, 631636.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

23.

24.
25.

26.

27.
28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.
36.

13941

Krogan, N.J.; Cagney, G.; Yu, H.; Zhong, G.; Guo, X.; Ignatchenko, A.; Li, J.; Pu, S.;
Datta N.; Tikuisis, A.P.; et al. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 2006, 440, 637643.
Andersen, J.S.; Lam, Y.W.; Leung, A.K.; Ong, S.E.; Lyon, C.E.; Lamond, A.I.; Mann, M.
Nucleolar proteome dynamics. Nature 2005, 433, 7783.
Bouwmeester, T.; Bauch, A.; Ruffner, H.; Angrand, P.O.; Bergamini, G.; Croughton, K.;
Cruciat, C.; Eberhard, D.; Gagneur, J.; Ghidelli, S.; et al. A physical and functional map of the
human TNF-/NF-B signal transduction pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 2004, 6, 97105.
Brehme, M.; Hantschel, O.; Colinge, J.; Kaupe, I.; Planyavsky, M.; Kcher, T.; Mechtler, K.;
Bennett, K.L.; Superti-Furga, G. Charting the molecular network of the drug target Bcr-Abl.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 74147419.
Melo, J.V.; Barnes, D.J. Chronic myeloid leukaemia as a model of disease evolution in human
cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007, 7, 441453.
Goh, W.W.; Lee, Y.H.; Ramdzan, Z.M.; Chung, M.C.; Wong, L.; Sergot, M.J. A network-based
maximum link approach towards MS identifies potentially important roles for undetected
ARRB1/2 and ACTB in liver cancer progression. Int. J. Bioinform. Res. Appl. 2012, 8, 155170.
Wang, X.; Zhang, A.; Sun, H.; Wu, G.; Sun, W.; Yan, G. Network generation enhances
interpretation of proteomics data sets by a combination of two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry.
Analyst 2012, 137, 47034711.
Cluitmans, J.C.; Hardeman, M.R.; Dinkla, S; Brock, R; Bosman, G.J. Red blood cell
deformability during storage: Towards functional proteomics and metabolomics in the blood
bank. Blood Transfus. 2012, 10, s12s18.
Burkhart, J.M.; Vaudel, M.; Gambaryan, S.; Radau, S.; Walter, U.; Martens, L.; Geiger, J.;
Sickmann, A.; Zahedi, R.P. The first comprehensive and quantitative analysis of human platelet
protein composition allows the comparative analysis of structural and functional pathways. Blood
2012, 120, e73e82.
Wishart, T.M.; Rooney, T.M.; Lamont, D.J.; Wright, A.K.; Morton, A.J.; Jackson, M.;
Freeman, M.R.; Gillingwater, T.H. Combining comparative proteomics and molecular genetics
uncovers regulators of synaptic and axonal stability and degeneration in vivo. PLoS Genet. 2012,
8, e1002936.
Zheng, Q.; Ren, Y.; Tzekov, R.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, B.; Hou, J.; Zhao, C.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, Y.;
Dai, X.; et al. Differential proteomics and functional research following gene therapy in a mouse
model of leber congenital amaurosis. PLoS One 2012, 7, e44855.
Johnson, E.K.; Zhang, L.; Adams, M.E.; Phillips, A.; Freitas, M.A.; Froehner, S.C.;
Green-Church, K.B.; Montanaro, F. Proteomic analysis reveals new cardiac-specific
dystrophin-associated proteins. PLoS One 2012, 7, e43515.
Becnel, L.B.; McKenna, N.J. Minireview: Progress and challenges in proteomics data
management, sharing, and integration. Mol. Endocrinol. 2012, 26, 16601674.
Chocu, S.; Calvel, P.; Rolland, A.D.; Pineau, C. Spermatogenesis in mammals: Proteomic
insights. Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med. 2012, 58, 179190.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

37.
38.

39.

40.

41.
42.
43.

44.
45.

46.

47.

48.
49.
50.
51.

13942

Baker, M.A.; Nixon, B.; Naumovski, N.; Aitken, R.J. Proteomic insights into the maturation and
capacitation of mammalian spermatozoa. Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med. 2012, 58, 211217.
Dadvar, P.; OFlaherty, M.; Scholten, A.; Rumpel, K.; Heck, A.J. A chemical proteomics based
enrichment technique targeting the interactome of the PDE5 inhibitor PF-4540124. Mol. Biosyst.
2009, 5, 472482.
Bantscheff, M.; Eberhard, D.; Abraham, Y.; Bastuck, S.; Boesche, M.; Hobson, S.;
Mathieson, T.; Perrin, J.; Raida, M.; Rau, C.; et al. Quantitative chemical proteomics reveals
mechanisms of action of clinical ABL kinase inhibitors. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 10351044.
Trinkle-Mulcahy, L.; Boulon, S.; Lam, Y.W.; Urcia, R.; Boisvert, F.M.; Vandermoere, F.;
Morrice, N.A.; Swift, S.; Rothbauer, U.; Leonhardt, H.; et al. Identifying specific protein
interaction partners using quantitative mass spectrometry and bead proteomes. J. Cell Biol. 2008,
183, 223239.
Sin, N.; Meng, L.; Auth, H.; Crews, C.M. Eponemycin analogues: Syntheses and use as probes
of angiogenesis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 1998, 6, 12091217.
Ranish, J.A.; Yi, E.C.; Leslie, D.M.; Purvine, S.O.; Goodlett, D.R.; Eng, J.; Aebersold, R. The
study of macromolecular complexes by quantitative proteomics. Nat. Genet. 2003, 33, 349355.
Dadvar, P.; Kovanich, D.; Folkers, G.E.; Rumpel, K.; Raijmakers, R.; Heck, A.J.
Phosphatidylethanolamine-binding proteins, including RKIP, exhibit affinity for
phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. ChemBioChem 2009, 10, 26542662.
Rix, U.; Superti-Furga, G. Target profiling of small molecules by chemical proteomics.
Nat. Chem. Biol. 2009, 5, 616624.
Brehmer, D.; Godl, K.; Zech, B.; Wissing, J.; Daub, H. Proteome-wide identification of cellular
targets affected by bisindolylmaleimide-type protein kinase C inhibitors. Mol. Cell. Proteomics
2004, 3, 490500.
Bach, S.; Knockaert, M.; Reinhardt, J.; Lozach, O.; Schmitt, S.; Baratte, B.; Koken, M.;
Coburn, S.P.; Tang, L.; Jiang, T.; et al. Roscovitine targets, protein kinases and pyridoxal kinase.
J. Biol. Chem. 2005, 280, 3120831219.
Rix, U.; Hantschel, O.; Drnberger, G.; Remsing Rix, L.L.; Planyavsky, M.; Fernbach, N.V.;
Kaupe, I.; Bennett, K.L.; Valent, P.; Colinge, J.; et al. Chemical proteomic profiles of the
BCR-ABL inhibitors imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib reveal novel kinase and nonkinase targets.
Blood 2007, 110, 40554063.
Moellering, R.E.; Cravatt, B.F. How chemoproteomics can enable drug discovery and
development. Chem. Biol. 2012, 19, 1122.
Nomura, D.K.; Dix, M.M.; Cravatt, B.F. Activity-based protein profiling for biochemical
pathway discovery in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10, 630638.
Bantscheff, M.; Drewes, G. Chemoproteomic approaches to drug target identification and drug
profiling. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2012, 20, 19731978.
Rybak, J.N.; Ettorre, A.; Kaissling, B.; Giavazzi, R.; Neri, D.; Elia, G. In vivo protein
biotinylation for identification of organ-specific antigens accessible from the vasculature.
Nat. Methods 2005, 2, 291298.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.
62.
63.

64.
65.

66.

13943

Roesli, C.; Neri, D.; Rybak, J.N. In vivo protein biotinylation and sample preparation for the
proteomic identification of organ- and disease-specific antigens accessible from the vasculature.
Nat. Protoc. 2006, 1, 192199.
Castronovo, V.; Waltregny, D.; Kischel, P.; Roesli, C.; Elia, G.; Rybak, J.N.; Neri, D.
A chemical proteomics approach for the identification of accessible antigens expressed in human
kidney cancer. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2006, 5, 20832091.
Conrotto, P.; Roesli, C.; Rybak, J.; Kischel, P.; Waltregny, D.; Neri, D.; Castronovo, V.
Identification of new accessible tumor antigens in human colon cancer by ex vivo protein
biotinylation and comparative mass spectrometry analysis. Int. J. Cancer 2008, 123, 28562864.
Scheurer, S.B.; Rybak, J.N.; Roesli, C.; Brunisholz, R.A.; Potthast, F.; Schlapbach, R.; Neri, D.;
Elia, G. Identification and relative quantification of membrane proteins by surface biotinylation
and two-dimensional peptide mapping. Proteomics 2005, 5, 27182728.
Roesli, C.; Mumprecht, V.; Neri, D.; Detmar, M. Identification of the surface-accessible,
lineage-specific vascular proteome by two-dimensional peptide mapping. FASEB J. 2008, 22,
19331944.
Strassberger, V.; Fugmann, T.; Neri, D.; Roesli, C. Chemical proteomic and bioinformatic
strategies for the identification and quantification of vascular antigens in cancer. J. Proteomics
2010, 73, 19541973.
Matta, A.; Ralhan, R.; DeSouza, L.V.; Siu, K.W. Mass spectrometry-based clinical proteomics:
Head-and-neck cancer biomarkers and drug-targets discovery. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2010, 29,
945961.
Apweiler, R.; Aslanidis, C.; Deufel, T.; Gerstner, A.; Hansen, J.; Hochstrasser, D.; Kellner, R.;
Kubicek, M.; Lottspeich, F.; Maser, E.; et al. Approaching clinical proteomics: Current state and
future fields of application in cellular proteomics. Cytometry A 2009, 75, 816832.
Tammen, H.; Schulte, I.; Hess, R.; Menzel, C.; Kellmann, M.; Mohring, T.; Schulz-Knappe, P.
Peptidomic analysis of human blood specimens: Comparison between plasma specimens and
serum by differential peptide display. Proteomics 2005, 5, 34143422.
Savino, R.; Terracciano, R. Mesopore-assisted profiling strategies in clinical proteomics for
drug/target discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2012, 17, 143152.
Matt, P.; Fu, Z.; Fu, Q.; van Eyk, J.E. Biomarker discovery: Proteome fractionation and
separation in biological samples. Physiol. Genomics 2008, 33, 1217.
Casadonte, F.; Pasqua, L.; Savino, R.; Terracciano, R. Smart trypsin adsorption into
N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyl-modified mesoporous silica for ultra fast protein digestion.
Chemistry 2010, 16, 89989001.
Savino, R.; Casadonte, F.; Terracciano, R. In mesopore protein digestion: A new forthcoming
strategy in proteomics. Molecules 2011, 16, 59385962.
Petricoin, E.F.; Ardekani, A.M.; Hitt, B.A.; Levine, P.J.; Fusaro, V.A.; Steinberg, S.M.;
Mills, G.B.; Simone, C.; Fishman, D.A.; Kohn, E.C.; et al. Use of proteomic patterns in serum to
identify ovarian cancer. Lancet 2002, 359, 572577.
Diamandis, E.P. Mass spectrometry as a diagnostic and a cancer biomarker discovery tool:
Opportunities and potential limitations. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2004, 3, 367378.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

67.
68.

69.
70.
71.

72.

73.
74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

13944

Baggerly, K.A.; Morris, J.S.; Coombes, K.R. Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in
serum: Comparing datasets from different experiments. Bioinformatics 2004, 20, 777785.
Lopez, M.F.; Mikulskis, A.; Kuzdzal, S.; Bennett, D.A.; Kelly, J.; Golenko, E.; DiCesare, J.;
Denoyer, E.; Patton, W.F.; Ediger, R.; et al. High-resolution serum proteomic profiling of
Alzheimer disease samples reveals disease-specific, carrier-protein-bound mass signatures.
Clin. Chem. 2005, 51, 19461954.
Clarke, C.H.; Buckley, J.A.; Fung, E.T. SELDI-TOF-MS proteomics of breast cancer.
Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2005, 43, 13141320.
Sauter, E.R.; Shan, S.; Hewett, J.E.; Speckman, P.; Du Bois, G.C. Proteomic analysis of nipple
aspirate fluid using SELDI-TOF-MS. Int. J. Cancer 2005, 114, 791796.
De Seny, D.; Fillet, M.; Meuwis, M.A.; Geurts, P.; Lutteri, L.; Ribbens, C.; Bours, V.;
Wehenkel, L.; Piette, J.; Malaise, M.; et al. Discovery of new rheumatoid arthritis biomarkers
using the surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry
ProteinChip approach. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 52, 38013812.
He, J.; Gornbein, J.; Shen, D.; Lu, M.; Rovai, L.E.; Shau, H.; Katz, J.; Whitelegge, J.P.;
Faull, K.F.; Chang, H.R. Detection of breast cancer biomarkers in nipple aspirate fluid by
SELDI-TOF and their identification by combined liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry. Int. J. Oncol. 2007, 30, 145154.
Hodgetts, A.; Levin, M.; Kroll, J.S.; Langford, P.R. Biomarker discovery in infectious diseases
using SELDI. Future Microbiol. 2007, 2, 3549.
De Seny, D.; Fillet, M.; Ribbens, C.; Mare, R.; Meuwis, M.A.; Lutteri, L.; Chapelle, J.P.;
Wehenkel, L.; Louis, E.; Merville, M.P.; et al. Monomeric calgranulins measured by
SELDI-TOF mass spectrometry and calprotectin measured by ELISA as biomarkers in arthritis.
Clin. Chem. 2008, 54, 10661075.
Cazares, L.H.; Diaz, J.; Drake, R.; Semmes, O. MALDI/SELDI Protein Profiling of Serum for
the Identification of Cancer Biomarkers. In Methods in Molecular Biology; Vlahou, A., Ed.;
Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 125140.
Villanueva, J.; Philip, J.; Chaparro, C.A.; Li, Y.; ToledoCrow, R.; DeNoyer, L.; Fleisher, M.;
Robbins, R.J.; Tempst, P. Correcting common errors in identifying cancer-specific serum peptide
signatures. J. Prot. Res. 2005, 4, 10601072.
Zhang, X.; Leung, S.M.; Morris, C.R.; Shigenaga, M.K. Evaluation of a novel, integrated
approach using functionalized magnetic beads, bench-top MALDI-TOF-MS with prestructured
sample supports, and pattern recognition software for profiling potential biomarkers in human
plasma. J. Biomol. Tech. 2004, 15, 167175.
Villanueva, J.; Philip, J.; Entenberg, D.; Chaparro, C.A.; Tanwar, M.K.; Holland, E.C.;
Tempst, P. Serum peptide profiling by magnetic particle-assisted, automated sample processing
and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2004, 76, 15601570.
Baumann, S.; Ceglarek, U.; Fiedler, G.M.; Lembcke, J.; Leichtle, A.; Thiery, J. Standardized
approach to proteome profiling of human serum based on magnetic bead separation and
matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Clin. Chem. 2005,
51, 973980.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.
91.

92.

93.

13945

De Noo, M.E.; Tollenaar, R.A.; Ozalp, A.; Kuppen, P.J.; Bladergroen, M.R.; Eilers, P.H.;
Deelder, A.M. Reliability of human serum protein profiles generated with C8 magnetic beads
assisted MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 72327241.
Callesen, A.K.; Madsen, J.S.; Vach, W.; Kruse, T.A.; Mogensen, O.; Jensen, O.N. Serum protein
profiling by solid phase extraction and mass spectrometry: A future diagnostics tool? Proteomics
2009, 9, 14281441.
Terracciano, R.; Casadonte, F.; Pasqua, L.; Candeloro, P.; Di Fabrizio, E.; Urbani, A.; Savino, R.
Enhancing plasma peptide MALDI-TOF-MS profiling by mesoporous silica assisted
crystallization. Talanta 2010, 80, 15321538.
Ray, S.; Reddy, P.J.; Jain, R.; Gollapalli, K.; Moiyadi, A.; Srivastava, S. Proteomic technologies
for the identification of disease biomarkers in serum: Advances and challenges ahead.
Proteomics 2011, 11, 21392161.
Ebert, M.P.; Meuer, J.; Wiemer, J.C.; Schulz, H.U.; Reymond, M.A.; Traugott, U.;
Malfertheiner, P.; Rcken, C. Identification of gastric cancer patients by serum protein profiling.
J. Proteome Res. 2004, 3, 12611266.
Zhang, Z.; Bast, R.C., Jr.; Yu, Y.; Li, J.; Sokoll, L.J.; Rai, A.J.; Rosenzweig, J.M.; Cameron, B.;
Wang, Y.Y.; Meng, X.Y.; et al. Three biomarkers identified from serum proteomic analysis for
the detection of early stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2004, 64, 58825890.
Chen, Y.D.; Zheng, S.; Yu, J.K.; Hu, X. Artificial neural networks analysis of surface-enhanced
laser desorption/ionization mass spectra of serum protein pattern distinguishes colorectal cancer
from healthy population. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004, 10, 83808385.
Carrette, O.; Demalte, I.; Scherl, A.; Yalkinoglu, O.; Corthals, G.; Burkhard, P.;
Hochstrasser, D.F.; Sanchez, J.C. A panel of cerebrospinal fluid potential biomarkers for the
diagnosis of Alzheimers disease. Proteomics 2003, 3, 14861494.
Cheng, A.J.; Chen, L.C.; Chien, K.Y.; Chen, Y.J.; Chang, J.T.; Wang, H.M.; Liao, C.T.;
Chen, I.H. Oral cancer plasma tumor marker identified with bead-based affinity-fractionated
proteomic technology. Clin. Chem. 2005, 51, 22362244.
Chang, J.T.; Chen, L.C.; Wei, S.Y.; Chen, Y.J.; Wang, H.M.; Liao, C.T.; Chen, I.H.;
Cheng, A.J. Increase diagnostic efficacy by combined use of fingerprint markers in mass
spectrometry-plasma peptidomes from nasopharyngeal cancer patients for example.
Clin. Biochem. 2006, 39, 11441151.
Zhang, H.; Wu, G.; Tu, H.; Huang, F. Discovery of serum biomarkers in astrocytoma by
SELDI-TOF MS and proteinchip technology. J. Neurooncol. 2007, 84, 315323.
Sawai, S.; Humemura, H.; Mori, M.; Satoh, M.; Hayakawa, S.; Kodera, Y.; Tomonaga, T.;
Kuwabara, S.; Nomura, F. Serum levels of complement C4 fragments correlate with disease
activity in multiple sclerosis: Proteomic analysis. J. Neuroimmunol. 2010, 218, 112115.
Chinello, C.; Gianazza, E.; Zoppis, I.; Mainini, V.; Galbusera, C.; Picozzi, S.; Rocco, F.;
Galasso, G.; Bosari, S.; Ferrero, S.; et al. Serum biomarkers of renal cell carcinoma assessed
using a protein profiling approach based on clinprot technique. Urology 2010, 75, 842847.
Mainini, V.; Gianazza, E.; Chinello, C.; Bilo, G.; Revera, M.; Giuliano, A.; Caldara, G.;
Lombardi, C.; Piperno, A., Magni, F.; et al. Modulation of urinary peptidome in humans exposed
to high altitude hypoxia. Mol. Biosyst. 2012, 8, 959966.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.
99.

100.
101.
102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

13946

Merkel, D.; Rist, W.; Seither, P.; Weith, A.; Lenter, M.C. Proteomic study of human
bronchoalveolar lavage fluids from smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by
combining surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization-mass spectrometry profiling with mass
spectrometric protein identification. Proteomics 2005, 5, 29722980.
Terracciano, R.; Preian, M.; Palladino, G.P.; Carpagnano, G.E.; Barbaro, M.P.; Pelaia, G.;
Savino, R.; Maselli, R. Peptidome profiling of induced sputum by mesoporous silica beads and
MALDI-TOF MS for non-invasive biomarker discovery of chronic inflammatory lung diseases.
Proteomics 2011, 11, 34023414.
Gygi, S.P.; Rist, B.; Gerber, S.A.; Turecek, F.; Gelb, M.H.; Aebersold, R. Quantitative analysis
of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags, Nat. Biotechnol. 1999, 17,
994999.
Ross, P.L.; Huang, Y.N.; Marchese, J.N.; Williamson, B.; Parker, K.; Hattan, S.; Khainovski, N.;
Pillai, S.; Dey, S.; Daniels, S.; et al. Multiplexed protein quantitation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2004, 3, 11541169.
Veenstra, T.D. Global and targeted quantitative proteomics for biomarker discovery.
J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2007, 847, 311.
Sui, J.; Zhang, J.; Tan, T.L.; Ching, C.B.; Chen, W.N. Comparative proteomics analysis of
vascular smooth muscle cells incubated with S- and R-enantiomers of atenolol using
iTRAQ-coupled two-dimensional LC-MS/MS. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2008, 7, 10071018.
Sui, J.; Zhang, J.; Ching, C.B.; Chen, W.N. Expanding proteomics into the analysis of chiral
drugs. Mol. Biosyst. 2009, 5, 603608.
Lange, V.; Picotti, P.; Domon, B.; Aebersold, R. Selected reaction monitoring for quantitative
proteomics: A tutorial. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2008, 4, 222.
Levin, Y.; Schwartz, E.; Wang, L.; Leweke, F.M.; Bahn, S. Label free LC-MS/MS quantitative
proteomics for large-scale biomarker discovery in complex samples. J. Sep. Sci. 2007, 30,
21982203.
Nanni, P.; Levander, F.; Roda, G.; Caponi, A.; James, P.; Roda, A. A label-free nano-liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry approach for quantitative serum peptidomics in
Crohns disease patients. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2009, 877,
31273136.
Gmez-Pozo, A.; Snchez-Navarro, I.; Calvo, E.; Agull-Ortuo, M.T.; Lpez-Vacas, R.;
Daz, E.; Camafeita, E.; Nistal, M.; Madero, R.; Espinosa, E.; et al. PTRF/cavin-1 and MIF
proteins are identified as non-small cell lung cancer biomarkers by label-free proteomics.
PLoS One 2012, 7, e33752.
Foss, E.J.; Radulovic, D.; Stirewalt, D.L.; Radich, J.; Sala-Torra, O.; Pogosova-Agadjanyan, E.L.;
Hengel, S.M.; Loeb, K.R.; Deeg, H.J.; Meshinchi, S.; et al. Proteomic classification of acute
leukemias by alignment-based quantitation of LC-MS/MS data sets. J. Proteome Res. 2012, 11,
50055010.
Breuker, K.; Jin, M.; Han, X.; Jiang, H.; McLafferty, F.W. Top-down identification and
characterization of biomolecules by mass spectrometry. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2008, 19,
10451053.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13947

107. Berardi, S.; Caivano, A.; Ria, R.; Nico, B.; Savino, R.; Terracciano, R.; De Tullio, G.;
Ferrucci, A.; De Luisi, A.; Moschetta, M.; et al. Four proteins governing overangiogenic
endothelial cell phenotype in patients with multiple myeloma are plausible therapeutic targets.
Oncogene 2012, 31, 22582269.
108. Descotes, F.; Jzquel, P.; Spyratos, F.; Campion, L.; Grenot, C.; Lerebours, F.; Campone, M.;
Gurin-Charbonnel, C.; Lano, D.; Adams, M.; et al. Identification of potential prognostic
biomarkers for node-negative breast tumours by proteomic analysis: A multicentric 2004 national
PHRC study. Int. J. Oncol. 2012, 41, 92104.
109. Raimondo, F.; Salemi, C.; Chinello, C.; Fumagalli, D.; Morosi, L.; Rocco, F.; Ferrero, S.;
Perego, R.; Bianchi, C.; Sarto, C.; et al. Proteomic analysis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma:
Identification of differentially expressed protein by 2-D DIGE. Mol. Biosyst. 2012, 8,
10401051.
110. Rai, A.J.; Gelfand, C.A.; Haywood, B.C.; Warunek, D.J.; Yi, J.; Schuchard, M.D.; Mehigh, R.J.;
Cockrill, S.L.; Scott, G.B.; Tammen, H.; et al. HUPO plasma proteome project specimen
collection and handling: Towards the standardization of parameters for plasma proteome
samples. Proteomics 2005, 5, 32623277.
111. Callesen, A.K; Christensen, R.; Madsen, J.S.; Vach, W.; Zapico, E.; Cold, S.; Jrgensen, P.E.;
Mogensen, O.; Kruse, T.A.; Jensen, O.N. Reproducibility of serum protein profiling by
systematic assessment using solid-phase extraction and matrix-assisted laser
desorption/ionization mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2008, 22, 291300.
112. Navare, A.; Zhou, M.; McDonald, J.; Noriega, F.G.; Sullards, M.C.; Fernandez, F.M. Serum
biomarker profiling by solid-phase extraction with particle-embedded micro tips and
matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom.
2008, 22, 9971008.
113. Penno, M.A.; Ernst, M.; Hoffman, P. Optimal preparation methods for automated matrix-assisted
laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry profiling of low molecular weight
proteins and peptides. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2009, 23, 26562662.
114. Zolla, L. Proteomics studies reveal important information on small molecule therapeutics: A case
study on plasma proteins. Drug Discov. Today 2008, 13, 10421051.
115. DAlessandro, A.; Zolla, L. Pharmacoproteomics: A chess game on a protein field. Drug Discov.
Today 2010, 15, 10151023.
116. Slany, A.; Haudek, V.J.; Gundacker, N.C.; Griss, J.; Mohr, T.; Wimmer, H.; Eisenbauer, M.;
Elbling, L.; Gerner, C. Introducing a new parameter for quality control of proteome profiles:
Considerations of commonly expressed proteins. Electrophoresis 2009, 30, 13061328.
117. Taylor, C.F.; Paton, N.W.; Lilley, K.S.; Binz, P.A.; Julian, R.K., Jr.; Jones, A.R.; Zhu, W.;
Apweiler, R.; Aebersold, R.; Deutsch, E.W.; et al. The minimum information about a proteomics
experiment (MIAPE). Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 887893.
118. Preian, M.; Pasqua, L.; Gallelli, L.; Galasso, O.; Gasparini, G.; Savino, R.; Terracciano, R.
Simultaneous extraction and rapid visualization of peptidomic & lipidomic body fluids
fingerprints by using mesoporous aluminosilicate and MALDI-TOF MS. Proteomics 2012,
doi:10.1002/pmic.201200204.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13

13948

119. Wegdam, W.; Moerland, P.D.; Meijer, D.; de Jong, S.M.; Hoefsloot, H.C.; Kenter, G.G.;
Buist, M.R.; Aerts, J.M. A critical assessment of SELDI-TOF-MS for biomarker
discovery in serum and tissue of patients with an ovarian mass. Proteome Sci. 2012, 10,
doi:10.1186/1477-5956-1045.
120. Zhang, J.; Wang, K.; Zhang, J.; Liu, S.S.; Dai, L.; Zhang, J.Y. Using proteomic approach to
identify tumor-associated proteins as biomarkers in human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
J. Proteome Res. 2011, 10, 28632872.
121. Gerszten, R.E.; Asnani, A.; Carr, S.A. Status and prospects for discovery and verification of new
biomarkers of cardiovascular disease by proteomics. Circ. Res. 2011, 109, 463474.
122. Keshishian, H.; Addona, T.; Burgess, M.; Kuhn, E.; Carr, S.A. Quantitative, multiplexed assays
for low abundance proteins in plasma by targeted mass spectrometry and stable isotope dilution.
Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2007, 6, 22122229.
123. Anderson, N.L.; Anderson, N.G.; Haines, L.R.; Hardie, D.B.; Olafson, R.W.; Pearson, T.W.
Mass spectrometric quantitation of peptides and proteins using Stable Isotope Standards and
Capture by Anti-Peptide Antibodies (SISCAPA). J. Proteome Res. 2004, 3, 235244.
124. Picotti, P.; Bodenmiller, B.; Mueller, L.N.; Domon, B.; Aebersold, R. Full dynamic range
proteome analysis of S. cerevisiae by targeted proteomics. Cell 2009, 138, 795806.
125. Addona, T.A.; Abbatiello, S.E.; Schilling, B.; Skates, S.J.; Mani, D.R.; Bunk, D.M.;
Spiegelman, C.H.; Zimmerman, L.J.; Ham, A.J.; Keshishian, H.; et al. Multi-site assessment of
the precision and reproducibility of multiple reaction monitoring-based measurements of proteins
in plasma. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 633641.
126. Shi, T.; Su, D.; Liu, T.; Tang, K.; Camp, D.G., II; Qian, W.; Smith, R.D. Advancing the
sensitivity of selected reaction monitoring-based targeted quantitative proteomics. Proteomics
2012, 12, 10741092.
127. Whiteaker, J.R.; Zhao, L.; Anderson, L.; Paulovich, A.G. An automated and multiplexed method
for high throughput peptide immunoaffinity enrichment and multiple reaction monitoring mass
spectrometry-based quantification of protein biomarkers. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2010, 9, 184196.
128. Hossain, M.; Kaleta, D.T.; Robinson, E.W.; Liu, T.; Zhao, R.; Page, J.S.; Kelly, R.T.;
Moore, R.J.; Tang, K.; Camp, D.G., II; et al. Enhanced sensitivity for selected reaction
monitoring mass spectrometry-based targeted proteomics using a dual stage electrodynamic ion
funnel interface. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2011, 10, doi:10.1074/mcp.M000062-MCP201.
129. Canterbury, J.D.; Yi, X.; Hoopmann, M.R.; MacCoss, M.J. Assessing the dynamic range and
peak capacity of nanoflow LC-FAIMS-MS on an ion trap mass spectrometer for proteomics.
Anal. Chem 2008, 80, 68886897.
2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).