We have used two different approaches for discovery proteomics: label-free and label-based proteomics approaches. The protein profile of tissue samples on SDS-PAGE showed the intact proteins and could be considered for proteomic analysis (Figure 2A). The quality control check of the instrument was monitored via system suitability software and it showed the day-wise variation in the instrument performance (Figure 2B). We observed 91% sequence coverage of the BSA sample in 30 min of LC gradient (Figure 2C). The LC gradient was optimized using 500 ng of commercial HeLa cell digest and we observed 2425 proteins in a 2 h gradient as compared to 1488 proteins in a 1 h gradient (Figure 2D). We were able to identify, on an average, 2428 proteins across all three technical replicates of a pool tissue sample (Figure 2E).
The optimized LC and MS parameters were applied to three different biological tissue samples (Figure 3 and Supplementary File 2). The chromatogram showed good reproducibility between three different biological tissue samples. We identified 2725, 2748, and 2718 quantifiable proteins from tissue samples 1, 2, and 3, respectively, using a label-free based approach. We observed that 151 proteins were common in the first and second LFQ experiments, 163 proteins were shared between the second and third LFQ experiments, and 187 proteins were shared between the first and third experiments, while 2190 proteins were common in all three tissue samples (Figure 4A).
We inspected the chromatogram and checked the iTRAQ labels and found it to be present in almost all MS/MS spectrums. The three sets have been run for the iTRAQ experiment. Proteins number obtained from each set were 2455, 2285, and 2307, respectively. 287 proteins were found to be common in sample 1 and sample 2, 183 proteins were common in sample 2 and sample 3, and 195 proteins were common in sample 1 and sample 3. The total number of proteins common in all three samples was 1557 (Figure 4B).
We compared total peptide spectral matches (PSMs), peptide groups, total proteins, protein groups, and the number of proteins obtained after 1% FDR from the LFQ and iTRAQ experiment (Figure 4C).

Figure 1: Workflow for tissue proteomics. (A) The sample processing steps to prepare samples from tissue lysate for the MS analysis. (B) Steps for label-free quantitation. (C) Steps for label-based quantitation. (D) Steps for data analysis using a proteome discoverer. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Quality check control of tissue samples and reproducibility of the instrument. (A) Quality check of tissue lysates on 12% SDS-PAGE (B) Monitoring of some peptides of BSA using Panorama to check the instrument variability across the different days. (C) The sequence coverage of BSA in three technical replicates. (D) Optimization of LC parameters for tissue samples. (E) The number of peptide spectral matches, peptides, and proteins in three different biological samples. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: LC and MS parameters for proteomics analysis of tissue sample. (A,B) The liquid chromatography gradient used to separate the peptides for label-free quantitation (A) and label-based quantitation (B) of the tissue sample. (C) The MS parameters for label-free quantitation and label-based quantitation. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Label-free and label-based quantitation of tissue sample. (A) Venn diagram represents the common and exclusive proteins in tissue samples 1, 2, and 3 of the label-free experiment. (B) Venn diagram represents the common and exclusive proteins in tissue samples 1, 2, and 3 of the label-based experiment. (C) The comparative analysis of the number of peptide spectral matches (PSMs), peptide groups, total proteins, protein groups, and protein number after 1% FDR in label-free quantitation (LFQ) and label-based experiment (iTRAQ). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary Files. Please click here to download this File.