Proteomics: a powerful tool to study plant responses to biotic stress

Table 3 Comparison of main label-based proteomic quantitative techniques

Quantification technique	Labeling level	Multiplexing capability	Reaction localization	Amino acid residue	MSⁿ	Characteristic	References
¹⁵N labeling	Protein	2-plex	In vivo and in vitro	All	MS1	Expensive; need metabolically active cells	[193]
SILAC	Protein	5-plex	In vivo and in vitro	Lys, Arg	MS1	Applicable to active cells; arginine can be converted into proline during cell division	[193]
CTAP	Protein	2-plex	In vivo and in vitro	Lys	MS1	Expensive; low multiplexing capability; need stable expression of exogenous enzymes	[194]
¹⁸O labeling	Peptide	2-plex	In vitro	C-terminal	MS1	Enzyme-mediated back-exchange of ¹⁸O with ¹⁶O	[195]
ICAT	Protein/peptide	2-plex	In vitro	Cys	MS1	Does not support labels without cysteine-containing peptides	[196]
ICPL	Protein/peptide	4-plex	In vitro	Lys	MS1	Support clinical samples; need complex computational analysis	[197]
TMT	Peptide	10-plex	In vitro	N-terminal, Lys	MS2	Expensive; wide application range	[198]
iTRAQ	Peptide	8-plex	In vitro	N-terminal, Lys	MS2	High throughout, strong stability; expensive	[199]
DiLeu	Peptide	12-plex	In vitro	N-terminal and ε-amino group of the lysine side chains	MS2	Wide application range	[200]
IPTL	Peptide	3-plex	In vitro	Employs SA (for N-terminal) and dimethyl (for C-terminal lysine) tagging	MS2	Wide application range	[201]

SILAC stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture, CTAP cell-selective labeling with amino acid precursors, ICAT isotope-coded affinity tag, ICPL isotope-coded protein labeling, TMT tandem mass tag, iTRAQ isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantification, DiLeu N,N-dimethyl leucine, IPTL isobaric peptide termini labeling

ISSN: 1746-4811