Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Process DIA data directly in Proteome Discoverer 2.0 with DIA Umpire


Alright, this DIA stuff is confusing.  There are methods all over the place.  WiSIMDIA on the Fusion, pSMART, multiplex-DIA, and even boring old SWATH.  Software-wise, there is tons of stuff out there.  This weekend I processed some DIA data from a Fusion directly through Proteome Discoverer 2.0...and it looks amazing.

The data in question was ran through the DIA-Umpire to convert the data into a handy-dandy MGF file format.  You can find details on the DIA-Umpire in this Nature Methods paper by Chih-Chiang Tsou et al., out of Alexey Nezvizhskii's lab.  Essentially, it is a (currently) command line driven program that takes your DIA data and "deconvolutes" it down to a format that is friendly to the proteomics processing pipelines we already know and trust.  How does it work?  No idea.  But it works, and the data looks amazing (did I say that once already?)


Here is a random high scoring PSM I grabbed.  Looks pretty incredible, right?  They all do.  And I didn't have to change my workflow at all.  I used SequestHT, target decoy and my normal basic consensus report.  I ended up with a ton of IDs and really nice true FDRs at every level I set them at (PSM, peptide, and protein).

If you are interested in identifying peptides via DIA and you are a little swamped by your software options, you might want to check this out.  I'm tired of learning new software interfaces -- lets put everything in Discoverer!


Monday, July 27, 2015

Another amazing Boston trip!


Yesterday, I somehow suckered around 80 people into spending about a whole day in a big room talking with me about Proteome Discoverer 2.0.  We ran through a lot of different processing ideas and scenarios and I got a ton of feedback to pass on to the Proteome Discoverer team (which I should probably be doing right now rather than blogging this...oh well...it WILL be passed on shortly)

Today was more fun of popping in to see a bunch of different labs and talk about different processing needs and how we can address them with Proteome Discoverer.  Now I've got several cool puzzles to work on (man, everybody is doing something cool in this town!!!).  Anyway, no real news here, just a shout out to the great people of Boston/Cambridge for their time and energy in making this (from my standpoint) a fantastically (that's a word?) productive trip!

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Want to take a full intensive course on targeted proteomics online?


This is why I love Twitter for learning stuff!  So much good information out there  -- such as this 21-part course on targeted proteomics put on recently by a ton of experts in targeted proteomics in Zurich.

You can watch all the videos here!

Shoutout to Ben Collins for leading me to this list of all the videos in order!

Friday, July 24, 2015

Outstanding review on the evolution of the Orbitrap



The Orbitrap hasn't been around all that long, yet there are tons of different flavors.  A really fun aspect of my job is that I sometimes get to go into a lab where someone has been running an Orbitrap XL (which is an awesome instrumet, btw!!) and I get to be there when they get to see what their new QE HF is capable of.

Can you still get the same data out of your Orbitrap XL?  In a lot of cases, hell yes you can!  Can you get that same information on the QE HF in...one-quarter or one-tenth the time....sometimes the answer is a resounding yes.

So what are the differences?  For an incredibly thorough (and very pretty) review of where the Orbitrap was, is, and maybe will be next check this paper from Shannon Eliuk and some guy named Makarov?

Its open access and a great read!

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Does DMSO addition affect label free quantification?


DMSO as an additive for nanoLC proteomics applications is still pretty polarizing.  If you want my opinion on it, it is: yes, you get more signal and peptide IDs, but you should anticipate requiring more cleaning and maintenance on your instrument.  If you don't mind the downtime and the signal intensity is paramount...well, that's your choice.  For me?  I would run DMSO if I was doing experiments on your instrument, but I wouldn't use it on mine...

To further investigate the affects of DMSO as an additive Dominika Strzelecka et al., checked to see if adding 3% DMSO would affect their label free quantification.  I stole the figure above from the open access paper.  In A, you see the ID'ed peptides.  In B you see the quantified peptides.  In the end they found that DMSO really didn't affect the quality of the quantification, though maybe the increase in signal does help you quantify more.

Me? I'm most interested in the shift in identified peptides!?!  Out of ~2500 peptides ID'ed over 1000 were differentially ID'ed by changing the buffers!

Highly recommended paper that adds more info to a very interesting topic.


Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Proteomics in negative mode!


Wow!  What is happening in this picture?  Something flat out crazy and awesome.

The paper is in press at MCP here from Nicholas Riley et al., out of some guy named Josh Coon's lab.

What is it?  A hacked LTQ Orbitrap with a new collision source.  They call it the "Multipurpose Dissociation Cell" and it massively improves the signal, speed, and utility of ETD fragmentation.  It improves it to the point that it makes doing proteomics completely in negative mode something that everyone has thought about something that is actually a possibility.

Just last week I spent some time explaining why we don't do negative proteomics for PTMs: poor ionization, fragmentation sucks, there aren't good tools for translating the data, etc.,  Amazing how this field evolves!

To get around poor ionization, this study switched the buffers around.  High pH reverse phase!
To get good fragmentation, they use their awesome new MDC source to perform Acitive Ion Negative ETD (AI-NETD)
To do the data processing, they studied the AI-NETD fragmentation spectra and determined the new charge-reduction loss masses and processed the data to remove these components.  Then they used a modified version of OMSSA that was set to read a(dot) and x fragment ions.


I had to pull the Wikipedia peptide fragmentation chart to figure out where things are coming apart. Wow, right?

This isn't the first run at doing negative proteomics.  It isn't even the first run at doing negative ETD fragmentation.  This is, however, the first time that we've seen this approach produce results on the same scale as we get from positive fragmentation studies.

In one run they broke the 1,000 proteins ID'ed barrier on yeast.
Using multiple enzymes they come close to 100% coverage of the yeast proteome.  How's that for on the right scale!?!

But that isn't really where the power of this approach is needed.  We can get whole proteome shotgun coverage.  We've kind of got that one in the bag.  This opens up a whole new capacity for ions that prefer negative charges.  Like many post translational modifications do.  Heck, this might even open us up for more high throughput analyses of completely different biomolecules like oligonucleotides.

I want to extend a personal thank you to the authors here.  I was trying to come up with reasons to get out of bed early this morning and just when "staying employed" didn't seem like it was enough to tip the scales, I found this in MCP.  Now I'm up, motivated and about to head out the door to see what else all you brilliant people are up to out there!

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Added PRM/DIA to QE cycle time calculator


Okay! So that got downloaded a LOT!!!  Thanks for the feedback!

Motivated me to do some updates on my lunch break.  In the Q Exactive Family Cycle Time calculator you will find some important updates including an important "read me" section including my assumptions and references for where I got the math I used.

More importantly, however, is that I added sections of parallel reaction monitoring calculations (PRM, also called T-MS2 in QE Tune previous to version 2.4) and simple DIA.

You can get the new and improved calculator here.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Q Exactive/Plus/HF cycle time calculator!



I got kind of motivated Sunday and finally knocked out a project that I've wanted to for a while.

Introducing the Q Exactive TopN cycle time calculator.  This simple Excel spreadsheet allows you to pull down the resolution and insert the max fill time for your method and will give you the minimum and maximium possible cycle times for your experiment.

Its for estimation purposes only but its something I like not having to think about.  You can download it here. 

BTW, in this exercise I'm defining "cycle time" as something like: "the amount of time it takes to perform all of the events you asked the instrument to do before it goes back and starts at the beginning (in this case, start the next MS1 scan)"

I hope to expand it later to include targeted and DIA experiments but it might be a bit.  Oh, and as always this isn't any official vendor type stuff (see dislcaimer section in spreadsheet AND this blog and please don't sue me!)

Sunday, July 19, 2015

How do I determine my peak width for optimal dynamic exclusion settings?


Whenever we talk about ideal dynamic exclusion settings I always start saying things like setting your numbers according to your peak widths.  This week I realized that not everyone knows how to do this!

The way I do this is by opening a file in Xcalibur.  Once I've done that I set some ranges with tight extraction windows so that I can look at a couple of good peptides. If its a human sample I look for two specific peptides.  Their m/z(s) are:

722.32477
and
756.42590

These are two peptides from albumin.  The first is relatively hydrophilic and the second is relatively hydrophobic.  Since albumin is everywhere I'm going to always see them, whether its plasma or cell pellets or whatever.

To extract the peaks, click the thumbtack on your chromatogram.  Next, right click anywhere on the chromatogram.  Before you do anything else, toggle the tab over to the "Automatic processing" tab.


Set up the mass tolerance settings as above.  I like 5ppm, though you can probably go lower on a recently calibrated Orbitrap, but 5ppm will do it.  I don't use any smoothing or nuthin unless I'm trying to prepare a figure for people outside of the field to look at.

Next toggle back to ranges.  You'll need to set it up as so:


So, add 2 ranges to your chromatogram tabs.  Set them as base peaks and so that they only look at the MS1 scan filter.  The box above shows how to search for the hydrophilic peptide.  Repeat for the next row but enter the range(s) for the mass of the hydrophobic peptide.  Hit "OK". You should now be looking at something like this:



You can't see much until you actually zoom in on the peak.  You do this by clicking and dragging across the peak individually.  On this 2 hour gradient the first one looks like this:


Now, we can just eyeball this and say "Yup! Thats about 30 seconds" or we can drag the mouse across the line.  Normally in chromatography we would consider the peak width by measured across the peak at half height.  This is NOT how we do this for dynamic exclusion.  What you want to do is measure the peak from the intensity threshold cutoff in your method (or as close as you can get!)


(click to expand if you want to see it!

When this ion was first detected within this mass range on the instrument its intensity was 2e5.  On a Q Exactive, my intensity threshold cutoff filter is typically in the 1-2e4 range.  So the first time that this ion appeared in the chromatography it could be selected for fragmention.  If it was then the dynamic exclusion would start counting at that point.  In this case it was at 57.71 minutes.  If I look at the far end of the peak it disappears around that range and it is just about exactly 0.5 minutes after it started.  So this is a 30 second wide peak.  Repeat for the second peptide.

It is important to keep in mind that some peaks will look different than others.  In the case of these two peptides, I expect the second one to be wider than the first.  From threshold to threshold on a 2 hour gradient it is 45s to 55s.  Why is this?  No idea.  Not a chromatographer, but I can only set one value for my dynamic exclusion.  If I'm a soloist I'm going to err for the higher value.  If I'm a two-timer (description of my terms for this here) I've got to be a little more intelligent and I might want to look at 4 or 5 more peaks to get a good idea of what my real peptide elutions peaks look like so I get the ideal number of MS/MS events.





Saturday, July 18, 2015

Need another search algorithm? Check out ProLucid!



You know what the world needs? Another awesome search algorithm!  Prolucid is a brand new engine from the Yates lab that is described in this open access new paper. (oh...and I don't think that is the logo for it, I think that is something else...)

Why would we download it and give it a shot?


More peptides, of course!

If you don't want to check out all the math in the paper you can just download it here.

As a side note, have you seen this Wikipedia page that lists mass spec software?  It definitely misses some things but its pretty nice.