$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Figure 1 shows a general diagram of the workflow, including harvesting the tissue from mouse livers, using 1 mg of protein for digesting the protein lysate with trypsin, incubating peptides with antibody-conjugated beads, acquiring the samples on the MS, and finally performing DIA/SWATH analysis of the data using various quantitative proteomics software packages (academic and commercial).
Figure 2A shows how the timeline of the workflow and the amounts of sample and protein required, compared to alternative methods currently being used for multi-PTM enrichment studies. The one-pot method can be performed in half as much time and with half the number of samples as these alternative methods. Compared to the two single-PTM enrichment method, the one-pot protocol also requires half the amount of protein.
This protocol has been shown to be a feasible and cost-effective alternative. Figure 2B shows that the median coefficient of variation (CV) for modified peptide areas was lower in the one-pot method than in the single-PTM and serial-PTM enrichments. Figure 2C,D shows that, while comparing the one-pot PTM and single-PTM enrichment methods, no noteworthy differences were apparent between the correlations of site-level quantifications for the two modifications. This was also true for the peptide-level and fragment-level correlations. The same observation held for all three correlations when comparing the one-pot and serial-PTM enrichments. All underlying MS raw data and processed Excel results sheets associated with a recent report by Basisty et al.14 are available and can be downloaded from MassIVE (MSV00081906) and ProteomeXchange (PXD008640).
In general, while antibody enrichment strategies may show certain limitations, such as potential epitope occlusion or limited specificity, the antibodies used in this study are mixtures of independently generated clones and thus provide wider ranges of specificities.
Experimental results document the possibility of detecting and assessing PTM crosstalk. Figure 3 displays data from a successful enrichment and illustrates an example for a peptide containing multiple and different acyl modifications visualizing PTM crosstalk. Figure 3A shows a peptide that is acetylated on one lysine residue and succinylated on the other, and Figure 3B shows the same peptide succinylated at both lysines. This demonstrates that the same lysine residue can be modified with both acylation groups, and there is a possibility of crosstalk occurring at that site. Figure 4 displays the number of lysine residues that were identified as described in sections 7.1-7.3 to carry both modifications, also pointing towards possible PTM crosstalk.
As Figure 5 demonstrates, processing DIA PTM datasets with quantitative proteomics software allows us to pinpoint which specific lysine residues are modified. This is a concept known as site localization, which is an essential step for any analysis for determination of possible PTM crosstalk. Figure 5 displays two potential isoforms along with the confirming and refuting ions for each that could be visualized and assessed as described in sections 8.1-8.3 (specifically steps 8.3.2 and 8.3.3). Based on this information, we were able to confidently identify which of the two isoforms was present in the original sample. The MS/MS spectrum of the confirmed isoform KQYGEAFEKacR demonstrates clearly that the y ions (y2-y5) containing the acetylated lysine residue, which shifted by 42 m/z (the increment mass of an acetyl group), confirmed the specific lysine residue in the peptide that was modified.

Figure 1: Typical workflow for one-pot enrichment of PTMs. Tissue (here, livers) are harvested from SIRT5 KO and wild-type (WT) mice, and proteins are lysed, trypsin-digested into peptides, and desalted. Peptides are then enriched by immunoaffinity with combinations of succinyl- and acetyl-antibody beads. Parallel MS workflows measure both 1) small aliquots of whole lysate protein expression changes (for protein normalization) and 2) enriched acyl-containing peptides for acylation site identification (DDA-MS) and site localization, followed by quantification (DIA-MS). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Comparison of one-pot workflow with alternative methods. (A) Comparison of time, costs, and materials required for the one-pot workflow, serial-PTM enrichment, and two single-PTM enrichments. (B) Comparison of CVs between the one-pot workflow, single acetyl-lysine PTM enrichment, and single succinyl-lysine PTM enrichment. Spearman correlation analysis comparing the acyl peptide peak areas obtained from the one-pot workflow, and the single-PTM enrichments: corresponding plots of the log2 peak area results for (C) acetylation sites and (D) succinylation sites. Regression slopes and correlation factors are indicated in the individual panels14. Two independent biological replicates were processed for each of the conditions. This figure has been modified from Basisty et al.14. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Crosstalk between acetylation and succinylation modifications of lysine residues. MS/MS spectra of tryptic peptides from mitochondrial 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase that show the same amino acid sequence but have been modified at two lysine residues with different PTMs. (A) MS/MS of peptide AANEAGYFNEEMAPIEVKsuccTKacK and (B) MS/MS of peptide AANEAGYFNEEMAPIEVKsuccTKsuccK. This figure has been modified from Basisty et al.14. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Overlap and crosstalk between the acetylated and succinylated lysine residues–specific examples in protein complexes. (A) Venn diagram displaying overlap between 2,235 acetylation and 2,173 succinylation sites. Of these, 943 sites were both acetylated and succinylated. Liver from a SIRT5 (de-succinylase) knockout mouse was analyzed, and many succinylation sites were identified. In fact, they were more abundant than normally observed in mouse liver (modified peptides were filtered at a Q value of <0.05). (B) Protein complexes showing the percentage of their subunits containing both acetylated and succinylated sites (bold red line represents the significance as determined by Fisher's exact test). (C) Diagram of ATP synthase complex: protein subunits in red depict the subunits that contain both acetylated and succinylated sites. This figure has been modified from Basisty et al.14. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Quantitative proteomics software deciphers the peptide site localization of PTMs. Based on MS/MS fragmentation of the peptide, it is possible to provide information about the specific lysine residue the acetyl group is modifying. This showcases the ability of the software to offer valuable information on site localization of PTMs. (A) Two possibilities of lysine residue modification and PTM site localization: KQYGEAFEKacR (left) and KacQYGEAFEKR (right). "Confirming" and "refuting" fragment ions are shown for each of the potential site localization isoforms of the peptide. Based on this information, confirming scores and refuting scores are assigned, confirming the presence of isoform KQYGEAFEKacR in the sample. (B) MS/MS spectrum corresponding to the confirmed isoform KQYGEAFEKacR indicating that all y ions including the acetylated lysine residue (y2 and higher) carry an increment mass of +42 m/z, which corresponds to the acetyl modification. Observed b ions do not contain the modification. (C) Extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) with abundant peak areas resulting from y2 and y3 ions, both of which make up the acetylation site in the confirmed isoform KQYGEAFEKacR. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.