terminomics_analysis_workflow.md
In MiguelCos/fragNterminomics: Annotation and processing of peptides from FragPipe search results
Terminomics analysis of proteolytic processing in polycystic kidney
disease in mice
================
Miguel Cosenza-Contreras and Adrianna Seredynska
- 1 Background and general description
of the data analysis approach
- 2 General experimental information
- 3 Short description of database search
and quantitation approach
- 4 Required data and R packages
- 5 Data pre-processing
- 5.1 Summarization of modified peptides
from PSMs
- 5.2 Correction for isobaric impurity
and median centering the reporter ion intensities
- 6 Annotation of peptide
specificities
- 7 Annotate peptide N-termini
- 8 Visualization of peptide counts by
N-terminal modification and specificity
- 9 Annotation of protein termini by
Uniprot-annotated processing information
- 10 Visualization of N-termini counts
by Uniprot-annotated processing type
- 11 Quantitative analysis of
Semi-specific peptides
- 11.1 Set up the
SummarizedExperiment object
- 11.2 % of total summed abundance of
semi-specific peptides by the total summed abundance of all peptides
(raw intensities)
- 12 Differential abundance analysis of
semi-specific peptides (without protein-level normalization)
- 12.1 Results of comparison and
feature-specific FDR correction
- 13 Differential abundance analysis of
semi-specific peptides (after protein-level normalization)
- 13.1 Results of comparison and
feature-specific FDR correction
- 14 Visualization of differential
abundance results
- 15 Analysis of proteolytic patterns
from differential proteolysis
- 16 Comparative analysis of neo-termini
vs protein abundance
- 16.1 Scatter plot of log2-fold changes
of neo-termini vs protein abundance
- 17 Differential abundance analysis of
protein abundance
- 18 Generate tabular summary of
results
Background and general description of the data analysis approach
The extraction of information regarding proteolytic processing from
shotgun mass-spectrometry(MS)-based proteomics data realies heavily on
the confident identification of peptides that do not arise from
experimental proteolytic digestion (i.e. tryptic peptides). These
so-called ‘semi-specific’ peptides represent only \~5-15% of the sample,
but allowing their identification by peptide-to-spectrum matching (PSM)
algorithms (i.e. search engines) imposes an increased search space and
therefore a complication in terms of false discovery rate control.
Modern search engines such as MSFragger allow for very fast searches,
which is specially useful when having increased search spaces. In a
similar sense, the use of probabilistic modeling for post-processing and
validating PSMs (i.e., peptideProphet/Percolator) allows for the
reliable identification of an increased number of peptides, even when
faced with increased search spaces.
Based on this observation, we aimed to establish a data analysis
workflow that would allow to exploit these capacities of modern
algorithms for the large-scale identification and quantitation of
products of proteolytic processing from shotgun proteomics data (without
biochemical enrichment) and place this information into biological and
clinical context.
General experimental information
In order to showcase the capabilities of modern bioformatics tools in
combination with our data analysis approach to extract information
related to proteolytic processing from shotgun proteomics data
(i.e. without biochemical enrichment), we used a mouse model of
polycystic kidney disease (PKD) and isobaric labeling at the protein
level.
In brief, protein was extracted from 11 Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded
(FFPE) tissue samples and directly labeled before trypsin digestion
using TMT 11plex. Using this approach, we aimed to identify and quantify
both native and neo N-termini; in the later case, assuming that peptides
TMT-labelled at their N-termini would be those coming from intrinsic
proteolytic processing.
Short description of database search and quantitation approach
We used the FragPipe (v17.1) bioinformatic pipeline for database search,
re-scoring and quantitation.
In brief, we used MSFragger for peptide-to-spectrum matching against
canonical mouse sequences (EBI reference proteomes, version 2021_04). We
used argc semi-specificity (cleavage only at R), based on the assumption
that trypsin would not cleave at K after TMT labeling. Acetylation at
peptide N-term and TMT-labeling at N-term where both set as variable
modifications. TMT at K and carbamidomethylation of C were set as fixed
modifications.
MSBooster was to predict spectra and retention times which were used as
an input for Percolator for probabilistic rescoring and FDR control of
peptide identifications.
The TMT-integrator module was used for extraction and normalization of
quantitative information from MS2 reporter ions.
Required data and R packages
Fragterminomics installation and/or loading
if (!require("Fragterminomics", quietly = TRUE))
{
devtools::install_github("MiguelCos/Fragterminomics")
}
library(Fragterminomics)
Required R packages
## Required packages ----
library(tidyverse)
library(kableExtra)
library(limma)
library(clusterProfiler)
library(org.Mm.eg.db)
library(here)
library(janitor)
library(drawProteins)
library(seqinr)
library(ggpubr)
library(ggrepel)
library(DEP)
library(SummarizedExperiment)
library(dagLogo)
library(pheatmap)
library(RColorBrewer)
Required data
The main input data for downstream analysis is the psm.tsv file
generated by FragPipe. This include peptide modification information
that is used for the identification and categorization of N-termini. For
N-termini mapping and annotation, we use either the fasta file used for
the peptide identification search, or the one containing the identified
proteins, generated by FragPipe (protein.fas).
# loading the psm.tsv file
psm_tsv <- read_tsv(here("data-raw/psm.tsv"))
fasta <- read.fasta(file = here("data-raw/protein.fas"),
seqtype = "AA",
as.string = TRUE)
Sample annotation data
We need a file that provides information regarding the sample names, the
TMT channel used for labeling, and the experimental condition. This file
is used for downstream analysis and plotting.
Our starting annotation file is the annotation.txt used for the
TMT-integrator module in FragPipe. Here we generate a modified version
of this file, with the information required for downstream analysis. It
is important that the sample label in the annotation file matches the
name of the quantitative columns in the psm.tsv file.
# load data
sample_annotation <- read_delim(here("data-raw/annotation.txt"),
col_names = FALSE)
# genearate condition column
sample_annotation2 <- sample_annotation %>%
dplyr::mutate(channel = X1,
condition = str_remove_all(string = `X2`,
pattern = "[0-9]"),
label = X2) %>%
dplyr::select(-c(X1,
X2))
sample_annotation3 <- sample_annotation %>%
dplyr::rename(channel = X1,
sample = X2)
Data pre-processing
Summarization of modified peptides from PSMs
Since we start our analysis based on PSM identifications from the
psm.tsv file, we need first to summarize the information at the
modified peptide level.
The summarization of modified peptides from PSMs is based on a ‘best
PSM’ criteria:
- keep only psms with summed TMT intensity > 0
- keep only psms with peptideProphet prob > X (user defined)
- keep only psms with purity > X /* (user defined)
- if several PSMs map to the same modified peptide, select one with best
Purity
- if a modified peptide was identified with several PSMs and same high
purity then select the PSMs with highest summed TMT intensity.
We wrapped a function for this pre-processing step
(psmtsv_to_modified_peptides):
modif_peptides <- psmtsv_to_modified_peptides(psms = psm_tsv,
annot = sample_annotation3,
peptide_probability = 0.9,
minimal_purity = 0.5)
# generate a data frame mapping protein IDs to genes
prot2gene <- modif_peptides %>%
dplyr::select(Protein = `Protein ID`,
Gene = Gene,
Description = `Protein Description`)
Correction for isobaric impurity and median centering the reporter ion intensities
The TMT reporter ion intensities are corrected for isobaric impurity and
median centered. This is done using the purify_n_normalize function.
purified_peptide_data <- purify_n_normalize(psms = modif_peptides,
annot = sample_annotation3)
Annotation of peptide specificities
Based on our generated modified_peptides object (summary of modified
peptides from PSMs), we can now annotate the peptide specificities. This
is done using the annotate_peptides function.
We need to provide the fasta file used for the peptide identification
search, or the one containing the identified proteins, generated by
FragPipe (protein.fas). We have this stored in our fasta object.
Currently the function only supports fasta files with Uniprot formatted
headers.
We also need to provide a data frame associating peptides sequences to
Uniprot protein IDs, as defined in the fasta file. The protein ID column
should be named Genes and the peptide sequence column should be named
Peptide. We can generate such data as follows from the
modif_peptides object:
# select peptide and genes (protein) column for the annotation
peptide2protein <- modif_peptides %>%
# generate new Genes column from `Protein ID` one
mutate(Genes = str_trim(`Protein ID`)) %>%
dplyr::select(Peptide,
Genes)
Finally, the used should provide the specificity of the protease used
for the digestion. This is done by providing a regular expression that
defines the specificity of the protease. For example, for trypsin, we
would use R|K (cleavage after R or K).
if(!file.exists(here("report/outputs/annotated_best_psm_modified_peptide.tsv"))){
annotated_peptides <- annotate_peptides(peptide2protein = peptide2protein,
fasta = fasta,
specificity = "R|K",
decoy_tag = "^rev")
write_tsv(x = annotated_peptides,
file = here("report/outputs/annotated_best_psm_modified_peptide.tsv"))
} else {
annotated_peptides <- read_tsv(file = here("report/outputs/annotated_best_psm_modified_peptide.tsv"))
}
Annotate peptide N-termini
Starting from the modified_peptides object, we first merge with the
specificity annotation table, and then annotation the N-termini based on
the type of modification.
# merge the modified_peptides table and the annotated peptides table
annotated_best_psms <- left_join(modif_peptides,
annotated_peptides %>%
# remane column to protein_id for merging
dplyr::rename(`Protein ID` = protein_id)) %>%
clean_names() %>%
distinct() %>%
dplyr::select(-c(starts_with("wt"),
starts_with("ko"),
starts_with("mt"))) %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
dplyr::relocate("protein_id_modif_pep",
.before = peptide)
The annotate_nterm function is used to annotate the N-termini based on
the type of modification, currently tailored towards TMT labeling. The
user needs to define the expected tmtmass.
nterannot <- annotate_nterm(annotated_best_psms,
tmtmass = 304.2072)
Visualization of peptide counts by N-terminal modification and specificity
We first generate counts for each type of N-terminal modification and
specificity. This is done using the nterannot object.
annot_counts <- nterannot %>%
# count peptides by semi_type and nterm
dplyr::count(semi_type,
nterm) %>%
# add a column with the total number of peptides
mutate(total = sum(n)) %>%
# add a column with the percentage of peptides
mutate(perc = n/total * 100) %>%
# create a category column merging semi_type and nterm
mutate(category = paste(semi_type,
nterm,
sep = "_"))
… and prepare the data for visualization. In this case, we will focus on
N-terminally truncated peptides for the visualization.
# new version of the annot_counts - summing semi_Cternm TMT-labelled and semi_Cterm free
annot_counts_v2 <- annot_counts %>%
mutate(category = case_when(category == "semi_Cterm_free" ~ "semi_Cterm",
category == "semi_Cterm_TMT-labelled" ~ "semi_Cterm",
TRUE ~ category)) %>%
filter(!str_detect(semi_type, "semi_Cterm")) %>%
group_by(category) %>%
summarise(n = sum(n),
total = sum(total),
perc = n/total * 100) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(semi_type = case_when(str_detect(category, "semi_Cterm") ~ "semi_Cterm",
str_detect(category, "semi_Nterm") ~ "semi_Nterm",
TRUE ~ "specific"),
nterm = case_when(str_detect(category, "TMT") ~ "TMT-labelled",
str_detect(category, "acetylated") ~ "acetylated",
str_detect(category, "semi_Cterm") ~ "free",
TRUE ~ "free"))
ggplot(annot_counts_v2,
aes(x = n,
y = category,
fill = semi_type)) +
geom_col() +
geom_text(aes(label = n),
hjust = -0.2,
size = 2.5) +
labs(y = "N-termini",
x = "Number of peptides",
fill = "Semi-specificity")
Annotation of protein termini by Uniprot-annotated processing information
After annotating the peptide N-termini, we can annotate the protein
N-termini based on Uniprot-annotated processing information.
We make use of the drawProteins package for this, which allows to
extract Uniprot-annotated protein features from the Uniprot database via
API access.
First, we get the list of Uniprot IDs from which we want to extract
processing information from.
protein_nter <- nterannot %>%
clean_names() %>%
dplyr::select(protein_id,
peptide,
semi_type,
specificity,
is_terminal,
last_aa,
aa_before,
start_position,
end_position,
protein_length) %>%
dplyr::filter(str_detect(protein_id,
pattern = "Biognosys",
negate = TRUE),
specificity == "semi_specific")
protein_ids_nter <- protein_nter$protein_id %>%
unique()
Then, we extract the Uniprot-annotated processing information for each
protein ID. This is done using the get_features function from the
drawProteins package.
if(!file.exists(here("report/outputs/uniprot_features_pkd.rds"))){
uniprot_features <- purrr::map(.x = protein_ids_nter,
.f = drawProteins::get_features)
write_rds(uniprot_features,
file = here("report/outputs/uniprot_features_pkd.rds"))
} else {
uniprot_features <- read_rds(here("report/outputs/uniprot_features_pkd.rds"))
}
… and merge the output into a data frame format.
df_uniprot_features <- purrr::map(uniprot_features,
drawProteins::feature_to_dataframe)
df_features <- bind_rows(df_uniprot_features)
Finally, we annotate the protein N-termini based on the
Uniprot-annotated processing information. This is done using the
categorize_nterm function. This will generate a list including tabular
information and a visualization of the counts of N-termini by
Uniprot-annotated processing type and N-terminal modification.
categorized_termnini <- categorize_nterm(annotated_peptides = nterannot,
uniprot_features = df_uniprot_features,
distinct = TRUE)
Visualization of N-termini counts by Uniprot-annotated processing type
print(categorized_termnini$ntermini_category_plot)
Quantitative analysis of Semi-specific peptides
After annotation, we can use the standardized quantitative information
to evaluate the differential abundance of semi-specific peptides or
proteolytic products between conditions.
Set up the SummarizedExperiment object
For reproducibility and to facilitate downstream analysis, we will use
the SummarizedExperiment class to store the quantitative information.
This type of object allows to store column metadata (sample condition
and experimental design) together with row metadata (peptide
annotation).
Our experimental_design object contains the sample condition and
experimental design information. This is used to generate the
SummarizedExperiment object.
experimental_design <- sample_annotation2 %>%
filter(condition != "MT") %>%
mutate(replicate = channel)
SummarizedExperiment for scaled abundances
# peptide summary
pure_pet_nona_matrix <- purified_peptide_data$normalized_purif_matrix %>%
dplyr::select(-starts_with("MT")) %>%
column_to_rownames("protein_peptidemod") %>%
na.omit() %>%
as.matrix()
# select modified peptide annotations in the right order from the nterannot object.
annotated_best_psms_nona <- nterannot %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in% rownames(pure_pet_nona_matrix))
# create summarized experiment object for non-NA peptides (pure_pet_nona_matrix)
# and non-NA proteins (annotated_best_psms_nona)
data_pept_pur_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = list(counts = pure_pet_nona_matrix),
colData = experimental_design,
rowData = annotated_best_psms_nona
)
SummarizedExperiment for unscaled abundances
# peptide summary
pure_raw_pet_nona_matrix <- purified_peptide_data$purified_pept_quant %>%
dplyr::select(-starts_with("MT")) %>%
dplyr::select(-c("Modified Peptide",
"Peptide",
"Protein ID",
"Is Unique")) %>%
column_to_rownames("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
na.omit() %>%
as.matrix()
annotated_best_psms_raw_pure_nona <- nterannot %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in% rownames(pure_raw_pet_nona_matrix))
# create summarized experiment object
data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = list(counts = pure_raw_pet_nona_matrix),
colData = experimental_design,
rowData = annotated_best_psms_raw_pure_nona
)
% of total summed abundance of semi-specific peptides by the total summed abundance of all peptides (raw intensities)
As an exemplary exploratory analysis, we showcase the calculation of the
percentage of total summed abundance of semi-specific peptides by the
total summed abundance of all peptides (raw intensities).
This can be used as a proxy to evaluate the relative abundance of
proteolytic products between experimental conditions.
# extract peptide level data from summarized experiment object
mat_df_rawpur_nona <- as.data.frame(assay(data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona))
col_dat_df_rawpur_nona <- data.frame(colData(data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona))
row_dat_df_rawpur_nona <- data.frame(rowData(data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona))
# transform into long format
mat_df_rawpur_nona_long <- mat_df_rawpur_nona %>%
tibble::rownames_to_column("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
tidyr::pivot_longer(cols = where(is.numeric),
names_to = "label",
values_to = "Intensity") %>%
dplyr::left_join(., col_dat_df_rawpur_nona,
by = "label") %>%
dplyr::left_join(., row_dat_df_rawpur_nona,
by = "protein_id_modif_pep")
# use the long format data to plot the distribution of normalized abundances
# of proteolytic products
# filter long data to keep only proteolytic products
mat_df_rawpur_nona_long_proteolytic <- mat_df_rawpur_nona_long %>%
dplyr::filter(specificity == "semi_specific",
nterm == "TMT-labelled")
pept_summ_rawpur_semi_1 <- mat_df_rawpur_nona_long_proteolytic %>%
group_by(label, condition) %>%
summarise(`Summed Abundances Semis` = sum(Intensity, na.rm = TRUE))
# get the summ of all peptides per sample/condition
pept_summ_rawpur_all <- mat_df_rawpur_nona_long %>%
group_by(label, condition) %>%
summarise(`Summer Abundances Total` = sum(Intensity, na.rm = TRUE))
# merge the two data frames to get the normalized abundances of proteolytic products
pept_summ_rawpur_semi_3 <- pept_summ_rawpur_semi_1 %>%
dplyr::left_join(., pept_summ_rawpur_all,
by = c("label", "condition")) %>%
mutate(`% of Semi/Total Abundances` = `Summed Abundances Semis`/`Summer Abundances Total` * 100 )
ggplot(pept_summ_rawpur_semi_3,
aes(x = condition,
y = `% of Semi/Total Abundances`,
fill = condition)) +
geom_boxplot() +
# add jittered dots for data points
geom_jitter(width = 0.2,
height = 0,
alpha = 0.5,
size = 1) +
geom_signif(
comparisons = list(c("WT", "KO")),
map_signif_level = TRUE
) +
stat_compare_means(method="wilcox.test") +
labs(x = "Condition",
y = "% Protelytic products abundance",
title = "%Tot. semis/Tot. all")
Differential abundance analysis of semi-specific peptides (without protein-level normalization)
Now we can move forward with differential abundance analysis, to
pinpoint proteolytic products that are differentially abundant between
experimental conditions.
In first instance, we perform the differential abundance analysis with
standardized abundances ‘as is’, without protein-level normalization.
This means, we compare the abundance of peptides between conditions,
disregarding the abundance of the proteins they belong to. This can be
consired a ‘global’ approach for the differential abundance analysis.
Nevertheless, when using this approach many differentially abundant
proteolytic products would not represent differential proteolysis, but
rather differential protein abundance.
As a proxy to evaluate differential proteolysis, we would need to
perform the differential abundance analysis after correcting peptide
abundances by the abundances of the proteins they belong to. This is
done in the next section.
We use the limma package for this purpose. We first generate an
expression matrix and a design matrix including experimental information
for the comparisons, and then run the differential abundance analysis.
After linear model fitting, we apply a feature-specific FDR correction
focusing specifically on interesting features defined as proteolytic
products.
Prep expression matrix
mat <- assay(data_pept_pur_se_nona) %>%
na.omit()
Set up design matrix
# extract the condition from the colData of the summarized experiment object
condition <- colData(data_pept_pur_se_nona)$condition
design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + condition)
rownames(design) <- rownames(colData(data_pept_pur_se_nona))
colnames(design) <- c("KO",
"WT")
Run differential abundance analysis
fit <- lmFit(object = mat,
design = design,
method = "robust")
cont.matrix <- makeContrasts(
KO_vs_WT = KO-WT,
levels = design)
fit2 <- contrasts.fit(fit,
cont.matrix)
fit2 <- eBayes(fit2)
Generate topTable with comparison results
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma <- topTable(fit = fit2,
coef = "KO_vs_WT",
number = Inf,
adjust.method = "BH") %>%
rownames_to_column("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
separate(col = protein_id_modif_pep,
into = c("protein_id",
"modified_peptide"),
sep = "\\_",
remove = FALSE)
Results of comparison and feature-specific FDR correction
First we need to define which features or modified peptides from our
abundance matrix will be considered as proteolytic products.
We start by excluding non interesting data.
not_interesting_features <- c("charge", "retention",
"observed_mass", "calibrated_observed_mass",
"observed_m_z", "calibrated_observed_m_z",
"calculated_peptide_mass", "calculated_m_z",
"delta_mass", "intensity", "purity")
And then define what we consider as proteolytic products based on the
rowData from our data_pept_pur_se_nona SummarizedExperiment object.
In this case, we will define as proteolytic products or ‘neo-N-termini’
every semi-specific peptide that was labelled with TMT in the N-termini
(see code below).
peptide_data_annotation <- as.data.frame(rowData(data_pept_pur_se_nona)) %>%
mutate(neo_termini_status = case_when((nterm == "TMT-labelled" &
specificity == "semi_specific") ~ "neo_termini",
TRUE ~ "not_neo_termini")) %>%
dplyr::select(-all_of(not_interesting_features))
Now we can define the interesting features for the feature-specific FDR
correction:
# select columns with features to evaluate
# from the table mapping modified peptides to annotations
features <- peptide_data_annotation
# keep only peptides with interesting features
interesting_features <- features %>%
dplyr::rename(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
filter(neo_termini_status == "neo_termini") %>%
distinct()
And apply our function feature_fdr_correction:
compar_tab_feat_fdr <- feature_fdr_correction(toptable = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma,
interesting_features_table = interesting_features,
method = "BH") %>%
distinct()
We can ‘decorate’ the comparison results with further information about
the outcome of the differential abundance analysis, and merge the
comparison results with the peptide annotation information
compar_tab_feat_fdr <- compar_tab_feat_fdr %>%
left_join(.,peptide_data_annotation) %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
mutate(Feature = if_else(condition = adj.P.Val < 0.05 & fdr_correction == "feature-specific",
true = "Differentially abundant",
false = "Unchanged")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = case_when((Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC > 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Up-regulated",
(Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC < 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Down-regulated",
TRUE ~ "Unchanged/Specific")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = factor(Change_direction,
levels = c("Unchanged/Specific",
"Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated")))
Differential abundance analysis of semi-specific peptides (after protein-level normalization)
First we need to normalize the peptide abundances based on the
abundances of the proteins they belong to. This is done using the
peptide2protein_normalization function.
This function perform the next processing steps:
-
- Get a peptide abundance matrix (raw abundances).
-
- Summarize the abundances to protein abundances based on unique
fully-specific peptides (this is optional but it’s set as such by
default). This means: we assume that the abundance of a protein is
represented by the abundance of its unique fully-specific
peptides.
-
- Calculate the peptide to protein ratio.
-
- Calculate the fraction of abundance of each peptide which is
representative of the whole protein abundance.
-
- Log2-transform this abundance values and normalize by median
centering.
protein_normalized_peptides <- peptide2protein_normalization(peptides = purified_peptide_data$purified_pept_quant,
annot = sample_annotation3,
peptide_annot = annotated_best_psms,
summarize_by_specificity = TRUE)
Prep summarizedExperiment object from protein-normalized abundances
# peptide summary
pure_pet_protnorn_matrix <- protein_normalized_peptides$protein_normalized_pepts_scaled %>%
dplyr::select(-matches("_MT")) %>%
column_to_rownames("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
na.omit() %>%
as.matrix()
# select modified peptide annotations in the right order from the nterannot object.
annotated_best_psms_nona <- nterannot %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in% rownames(pure_pet_protnorn_matrix))
# create summarized experiment object for non-NA peptides (pure_pet_nona_matrix)
# and non-NA proteins (annotated_best_psms_nona)
data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = list(counts = pure_pet_protnorn_matrix),
colData = experimental_design,
rowData = annotated_best_psms_nona
)
Prep abundance matrix
mat_pept_protnorm <- assay(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona) %>%
na.omit()
Set up design matrix
condition <- colData(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona)$condition
design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + condition)
rownames(design) <- rownames(colData(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona))
colnames(design) <- c("KO",
"WT")
Run differential abundance analysis
fit_n1 <- lmFit(object = mat_pept_protnorm,
design = design,
method = "robust")
cont.matrix <- makeContrasts(KO_vs_WT = KO-WT,
levels = design)
fit_n2 <- contrasts.fit(fit_n1,
cont.matrix)
fit_n2 <- eBayes(fit_n2)
Generate topTable with comparison results
KO_vs_WT_pept_protein_normalized_limma <- topTable(fit = fit_n2,
coef = "KO_vs_WT",
number = Inf,
adjust.method = "BH") %>%
rownames_to_column("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
separate(col = protein_id_modif_pep,
into = c("protein_id",
"modified_peptide"),
sep = "\\_",
remove = FALSE)
Results of comparison and feature-specific FDR correction
Prepare the data frame of interesting features
#n1 refers to protein-normalized peptide intensities
peptide_data_n1_annotation <- as.data.frame(rowData(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona)) %>%
mutate(neo_termini_status = case_when((nterm == "TMT-labelled" &
specificity == "semi_specific") ~ "neo_termini",
TRUE ~ "not_neo_termini")) %>%
dplyr::select(-all_of(not_interesting_features))
# select columns with features to evaluate
# from the table mapping modified peptides to annotations
features_n1 <- peptide_data_n1_annotation
# keep only peptides with interesting features
interesting_features_n1 <- features_n1 %>%
dplyr::rename(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
filter(neo_termini_status == "neo_termini") %>%
distinct
And apply our function feature_fdr_correction:
compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr1 <- feature_fdr_correction(toptable = KO_vs_WT_pept_protein_normalized_limma,
interesting_features_table = interesting_features_n1,
method = "BH") %>%
distinct()
… and ‘decorate’ the output limma table
compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr1 %>%
left_join(.,peptide_data_n1_annotation) %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
mutate(Feature = if_else(condition = adj.P.Val < 0.05 & fdr_correction == "feature-specific",
true = "Differentially abundant",
false = "Unchanged")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = case_when((Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC > 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Up-regulated",
(Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC < 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Down-regulated",
TRUE ~ "Unchanged/Specific")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = factor(Change_direction,
levels = c("Unchanged/Specific",
"Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated")))
Visualization of differential abundance results
We want now to quickly see the results of the differential abundance
analysis. It is interesting to see how these change between
protein-normalized abundances and non-normalized abundances.
Let’s first prepare the data for visualization.
# differentially and non-differentially abundant peptides from the non-protein-normalized data
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_diff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_feat_fdr %>%
filter(Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_feat_fdr %>%
filter(!Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
# differentially and non-differentially abundant peptides from the protein-normalized data
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr %>%
filter(Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr %>%
filter(!Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
… generate the volcano plot objects
# non-normalized DE results
volcano_limma4 <- ggplot(compar_tab_feat_fdr,
aes(x = logFC,
y = -log10(adj.P.Val))) +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "grey") +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_diff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "red") +
geom_hline(yintercept = -log10(0.05),
color = "red",
linetype = "dashed") +
xlab("logFC(KO / WT)") +
labs(title = "Diff. abund w/o protein-level normalization\n
Feature-specific correction",
subtitle = paste("Differentially abundant features = ",
nrow(KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_diff_feat_spec_fdr)))
# protein-normalized DE results
volcano_pept_norm_limma3 <- ggplot(compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr,
aes(x = logFC,
y = -log10(adj.P.Val))) +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "grey") +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "red") +
geom_hline(yintercept = -log10(0.05),
color = "red",
linetype = "dashed") +
xlab("logFC(KO / WT)") +
labs(title = "Diff. abund after protein-level normalization\n
Feature-specific correction",
subtitle = paste("Differentially abundant features = ",
nrow(KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr)))
Visualize both plots side-by-side:
cowplot::plot_grid(volcano_limma4,
volcano_pept_norm_limma3,
nrow = 1)
We can observe that only keep 513 proteolytic products as differentially
abundant after normalization by protein abundance. We consider these as
those representing differential proteolysis.
Analysis of proteolytic patterns from differential proteolysis
We will now focus on the differentially abundant proteolytic products
after normalization by protein abundance.
For the sake of this demonstrative workflow, we will focus on those
proteolytic products shown as upregulated in the KO condition.
In order to evaluate the sequence patterns at the cleavage sites, we
need to use the sequences of identified truncated peptides or
neo-N-termini, to reconstruct peptide sequences of consistent length,
representing the cleavage site in the central position.
We use the get_cleave_area function for this. It takes a peptide
annotation table generated by the annotate_peptides function, and
generate a new table with the cleavage area sequences.
We start by pulling out the upregulated proteolytic products from the
limma table.
upregulated_neo_termini <- KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr %>%
filter(logFC > 0) %>%
mutate(Peptide = peptide)
We then use the get_cleave_area function to generate the cleavage area
sequences.
cleave_area <- get_cleave_area(upregulated_neo_termini)$cleave_area20
Now we have a data frame with the column cleave_area20, containing
sequences of 20 amino acid length with the cleavage site between the
10th and 11th amino acid.
We then need to prepare these sequences to be visualized in a heatmap,
counting the number of times each amino acid appears in a given
position.
We start by extracting the sequences of 20 amino acid length from the
cleave_area data frame.
cleave_area_seqs <- cleave_area %>%
pull(cleave_area20)
And then use the peptide_matrix_count function to transform the vector
of sequences into a matrix of counts.
upregulated_cleavage_area_counts <- peptide_matrix_count(cleave_area_seqs)
Finally we can use the pheatmap package to generate a heatmap
visualization of amino acid usage at the cleavage site.
pheatmap(upregulated_cleavage_area_counts$amino_acid_count,
cluster_rows = FALSE,
cluster_cols = FALSE,
main = "AA Counts - Based on increased proteolytic producs in KO",
color = colorRampPalette(brewer.pal(n = 9, name = "Reds"))(100))
We see that several of our up-regulated proteolytic products contain C
or S at the P1 position.
Comparative analysis of neo-termini vs protein abundance
After differential abundance analysis of proteolytic products, we can
compare the abundance of neo-termini with the abundance of the proteins
they belong to. This can give us clues into the behavior of the
proteolytic products in the context of the protein abundance, and help
us to identify proteolytic products that are differentially abundant due
to differential proteolysis, from those that are differentially abundant
due to differential protein abundance.
We start by extracting the protein abundance information from the
protein_normalized_peptides object, and then extracting log2-fold
changes of protein abundance between conditions.
The sub-object summarized_protein_abundance_scaled contains a matrix
of scaled/normalized protein abundances calculated based on the
abundances of unique fully-specific peptides. These would better
represent the abundance of the proteins, by avoiding the inclusion of
semi-specific peptides that might be affected by differential
proteolysis.
log2FCs_proteins <- protein_normalized_peptides$summarized_protein_abundance_scaled %>%
# exclude columns representing empty TMT channels
dplyr::select(-matches("MT")) %>%
# reformat the data frame into a long format
pivot_longer(cols = ends_with("_prot"),
names_to = "sample",
values_to = "Abundance") %>%
# define sample and condition names for each quant observation per protein
mutate(sample = str_remove(sample,
"_prot")) %>%
mutate(condition = str_remove(sample,
"[0-9]")) %>%
dplyr::rename(Protein = protein_id) %>%
group_by(Protein, condition) %>%
# calculate the median abundance per protein per condition
summarise(median_abundance = median(Abundance, na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
# reformat into wide format
pivot_wider(id_cols = c("Protein"),
values_from = median_abundance,
names_from = condition) %>%
# merge with gene name annotation
left_join(., prot2gene) %>%
distinct() %>%
# calculate the logFC of protein abundance between conditions
mutate(logFC_fully_tryp_protein = log2(KO)-log2(WT))
We continue by extracting the neo-termini abundance information from the
protein_normalized_peptides object, and then extracting log2-fold
changes of neo-termini abundance between conditions.
The sub-object protein_normalized_pepts_scaled contains a matrix of
scaled/normalized neo-termini abundances normalized by protein abundance
(the latter calculated from fully-tryptic peptides). These would better
represent the abundance of the neo-termini, by correcting for the
abundance of the proteins they belong to, and would help better to make
inferences in terms of differential proteolysis.
log2FCs_peptides <- protein_normalized_peptides$protein_normalized_pepts_scaled %>%
# exclude columns representing empty TMT channels
dplyr::select(-matches("_MT")) %>%
# reformat the data frame into a long format
pivot_longer(cols = starts_with("fraction_int_pept"),
names_to = "sample",
values_to = "Abundance") %>%
# define sample and condition names for each quant observation per protein
mutate(sample = str_remove(sample,
"fraction_int_peptide2prot_")) %>%
mutate(condition = str_remove(sample,
"[0-9]")) %>%
# generate coolumns mapping modified peptides and protein IDs
separate(protein_id_modif_pep,
into = c("Protein", "modified_peptide"),
sep = "\\_",
remove = FALSE) %>%
# summarize median abundance per modified peptide per condition
group_by(Protein, modified_peptide, condition) %>%
summarise(median_abundance = median(Abundance, na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
# reformat into wide format
pivot_wider(id_cols = c("Protein", "modified_peptide"),
values_from = median_abundance,
names_from = condition) %>%
# merge with gene name annotation
left_join(., prot2gene) %>%
distinct() %>%
# generate a column with the logFC of neo-termini abundance
# between conditions
mutate(logFC_peptides = log2(KO)-log2(WT))
We can then join the fold-changes of protein and neo-termini abundance
into a single data frame.
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots <- left_join(log2FCs_proteins,
log2FCs_peptides,
by = c("Protein",
"Gene",
"Description"),
suffix = c("_protein",
"_peptide")) %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(Protein,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_"))
Scatter plot of log2-fold changes of neo-termini vs protein abundance
We then generate a scatter plot of the log2-fold changes vs protein
abundance, of the differentially abundant neo-termini that were
identified during our differential abundance analysis.
First we filter to keep only the differentially abundant neo-termini.
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1 <- log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in%
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr$protein_id_modif_pep)
… and run a correlation test to evaluate the relationship between
differentially abundant neo-termini and protein abundance.
cor_test_res_1 <- cor.test(log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1$logFC_peptides,
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1$logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
method = "pearson")
Then we generate the scatter plot.
ggplot(log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1,
aes(x = logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
y = logFC_peptides)) +
geom_smooth(method=lm,
se = FALSE,
linetype="dashed",
linewidth = 1,
color = "black") +
geom_point() +
annotate("text",
x = -0.25,
y = 2.5,
label = paste0("Pearson's R: ", round(cor_test_res_1$estimate, 2),
"\n",
"p-value: ", format(cor_test_res_1$p.value, scientific = TRUE)),
hjust = 0, vjust = 0) +
xlim(-0.3, 0.3) +
ylim(-3, 3) +
scale_color_manual(values = c("#2a9d8f", "red")) +
xlab("log2(FC) - Protein abundances") +
ylab("log2(FC) - Neo-termini") +
geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
theme(panel.background = element_rect(fill = "white"),
panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank()) +
ggtitle(label = "Diff. abund. neo-termini vs protein abundance")
With this visualization, we can then pinpoint proteolytic products that
show a differential behavior compared to the abundance of their
associated proteins.
Specifically in this plot, we can take proteolytic products of
Cadherin-16 and Meprin A. These show increased abundance in KO, while
their associated proteins show decreased abundance in KO.
We first filter the data frame containing the differentially abundant
neo-termini to keep only those belonging to Cadherin-16 and Meprin A.
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_mep1a_Cdh16 <- log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1 %>%
filter(Gene %in% c("Mep1a", "Cdh16"))
Then we visualize this selection.
ggplot(log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1,
aes(x = logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
y = logFC_peptides)) +
geom_smooth(method=lm,
se = FALSE,
linetype="dashed",
linewidth = 1,
color = "black") +
geom_point() +
geom_point(
mapping = aes(
x = logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
y = logFC_peptides),
data = log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_mep1a_Cdh16,
size = 2,
color = "red"
) +
ggrepel::geom_label_repel(data = log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_mep1a_Cdh16,
aes(label = Gene),
size = 2.2,
color = "black") +
annotate("text",
x = -0.25,
y = 2.5,
label = paste0("Pearson's R: ", round(cor_test_res_1$estimate, 2),
"\n",
"p-value: ", format(cor_test_res_1$p.value, scientific = TRUE)),
hjust = 0, vjust = 0) +
xlim(-0.3, 0.3) +
ylim(-3, 3) +
scale_color_manual(values = c("#2a9d8f", "red")) +
xlab("log2(FC) - Protein abundances") +
ylab("log2(FC) - Neo-termini") +
geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
theme(panel.background = element_rect(fill = "white"),
panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank()) +
ggtitle(label = "Diff. abund. neo-termini vs protein abundance")
Differential abundance analysis of protein abundance
One of the advantages of performing analyzes of proteolytic processing
from shotgun proteomics data (without biochemical enrichment of N-/C-
termini) is that we can perform differential statistics of both protein
abundance and proteolytic processing from the same dataset. After
performing differential abundance analyses on proteolytic products, we
now want to explore the results at the protein level.
We will use the summarization of fully tryptic peptides to generate
normalized/scaled values of protein abundance to perform our
differential abundance analyses. The peptide2protein_normalization
function allow us to do this, by defining the argument
summarize_by_specificicty = TRUE.
protein_pept_prot_by_specific <- peptide2protein_normalization(peptides = purified_peptide_data$purified_pept_quant,
annot = sample_annotation3,
peptide_annot = annotated_best_psms,
summarize_by_specificity = TRUE)
We start by extracting the protein abundance information from the
protein_normalized_peptides object, and from data we prepare and
experimental design matrix that can be further use for our limma
analyses.
# prep df
protein_mat_df <- protein_pept_prot_by_specific$summarized_protein_abundance_scaled %>%
dplyr::select(-matches("MT")) %>%
column_to_rownames(var = "protein_id") %>%
na.omit()
# transform into matrix
protein_mat <- as.matrix(protein_mat_df)
# set minimal experimental design data frame from matrix column names
experimental_design_prot <- as.data.frame(colnames(protein_mat)) %>%
dplyr::mutate(sample = str_remove(colnames(protein_mat), "_prot")) %>%
dplyr::mutate(condition = str_remove(sample, "[0-9]")) %>%
dplyr::select(sample, condition)
row_data_proteins <- rownames(protein_mat)
# prepare SummarizedExperiment object for protein abundances
data_prot_protnorn_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = protein_mat,
colData = experimental_design_prot,
rowData = row_data_proteins
)
We then prepare the design matrix and execute the differential abundance
analysis.
condition <- colData(data_prot_protnorn_se_nona)$condition
design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + condition)
rownames(design) <- rownames(colData(data_prot_protnorn_se_nona))
colnames(design) <- c("KO",
"WT")
fit_prot <- lmFit(object = assay(data_prot_protnorn_se_nona),
design = design,
method = "robust")
cont.matrix <- makeContrasts(KO_vs_WT = KO-WT,
levels = design)
fit_prot2 <- contrasts.fit(fit_prot,
cont.matrix)
fit_prot2 <- eBayes(fit_prot2)
… and generate the topTable and volcano visualization with the
comparison results.
# generate limma toptable
KO_vs_WT_protein_limma <- topTable(fit = fit_prot2,
coef = "KO_vs_WT",
number = Inf,
adjust.method = "BH") %>%
rownames_to_column("Protein") %>%
left_join(., distinct(prot2gene)) %>%
mutate(Feature = case_when(
adj.P.Val < 0.05 ~ "Differentially abundant",
TRUE ~ "Not diff. abund.")) %>%
#exclude not interesting columns
dplyr::select(-c("B", "t", "AveExpr"))
ggplot(KO_vs_WT_protein_limma,
aes(x = logFC,
y = -log10(adj.P.Val),
color = Feature)) +
geom_point() +
geom_hline(yintercept = -log10(0.05),
color = "red",
linetype = "dashed") +
xlab("logFC(KO / WT)") +
labs(title = "Differential abundance analysis (proteins)",
subtitle = paste("Differentially abundant proteins = ", sum(KO_vs_WT_protein_limma$Feature == "Differentially abundant"))) +
scale_color_manual(values = c("red", "grey")) +
theme(legend.position = "bottom")
Generate tabular summary of results
As a way to explore the results of the differential abundance analysis
of proteolytic processing in the context of the context of protein
abundance, we will generate a tabular summary of the results.
We start by generating cleavage area annotations from the idenfied
semi-specific peptides, and merge it with differential abundance
analysis results from proteolytic products.
clevage_areas_semi_pepts <- get_cleave_area(annotated_peptides)$cleave_area20 %>%
# select interesting features/columns
dplyr::select(
protein_id, protein_description, peptide = Peptide, semi_type, is_terminal,
cleavage_site, short_cleavage_site, cleave_area20
)
# get interesting features from limma terminomics Results
limma_terminomics_summary <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr %>%
# select interesting features/columns
dplyr::select(
protein_id_modif_pep, protein_id, modified_peptide, peptide,
logFC, P.Value, adj.P.Val, Feature, Change_direction, neo_termini_status,protein_length, start_position, end_position,
next_aa, nterm, tmt_tag, last_aa, aa_after, aa_before, prev_aa,
neo_termini_status, fdr_correction
)
# merge limma terminomics results with cleavage area annotations
limma_terminomics_prot_norm <- left_join(
limma_terminomics_summary,
clevage_areas_semi_pepts,
) %>%
distinct() %>%
dplyr::relocate(
"protein_description", .before = modified_peptide
) %>%
filter(neo_termini_status == "neo_termini")
We then merge the terminomics differential abundance analyses with the
protein-level differential abundance analysis.
merged_semis_n_proteomics <- left_join(
limma_terminomics_prot_norm,
KO_vs_WT_protein_limma,
by = c("protein_id" = "Protein",
"protein_description" = "Description" ),
suffix = c("_terminome", "_proteome")
) %>%
dplyr::relocate(
Gene, .after = protein_id
)
… and save the results in a tab-separated file for further exploration.
write_tsv(
x = limma_terminomics_prot_norm,
file = here("report/outputs/limma_merged_terminomics_and_proteomics.tsv")
)
MiguelCos/fragNterminomics documentation built on Oct. 13, 2023, 5:31 a.m.
R Package Documentation
Browse R Packages
We want your feedback!
Note that we can't provide technical support on individual packages. You should contact the package authors for that.
Terminomics analysis of proteolytic processing in polycystic kidney disease in mice ================ Miguel Cosenza-Contreras and Adrianna Seredynska
- 1 Background and general description of the data analysis approach
- 2 General experimental information
- 3 Short description of database search and quantitation approach
- 4 Required data and R packages
- 5 Data pre-processing
- 5.1 Summarization of modified peptides from PSMs
- 5.2 Correction for isobaric impurity and median centering the reporter ion intensities
- 6 Annotation of peptide specificities
- 7 Annotate peptide N-termini
- 8 Visualization of peptide counts by N-terminal modification and specificity
- 9 Annotation of protein termini by Uniprot-annotated processing information
- 10 Visualization of N-termini counts by Uniprot-annotated processing type
- 11 Quantitative analysis of Semi-specific peptides
- 11.1 Set up the
SummarizedExperimentobject - 11.2 % of total summed abundance of semi-specific peptides by the total summed abundance of all peptides (raw intensities)
- 12 Differential abundance analysis of semi-specific peptides (without protein-level normalization)
- 12.1 Results of comparison and feature-specific FDR correction
- 13 Differential abundance analysis of semi-specific peptides (after protein-level normalization)
- 13.1 Results of comparison and feature-specific FDR correction
- 14 Visualization of differential abundance results
- 15 Analysis of proteolytic patterns from differential proteolysis
- 16 Comparative analysis of neo-termini vs protein abundance
- 16.1 Scatter plot of log2-fold changes of neo-termini vs protein abundance
- 17 Differential abundance analysis of protein abundance
- 18 Generate tabular summary of results
Background and general description of the data analysis approach
The extraction of information regarding proteolytic processing from shotgun mass-spectrometry(MS)-based proteomics data realies heavily on the confident identification of peptides that do not arise from experimental proteolytic digestion (i.e. tryptic peptides). These so-called ‘semi-specific’ peptides represent only \~5-15% of the sample, but allowing their identification by peptide-to-spectrum matching (PSM) algorithms (i.e. search engines) imposes an increased search space and therefore a complication in terms of false discovery rate control.
Modern search engines such as MSFragger allow for very fast searches, which is specially useful when having increased search spaces. In a similar sense, the use of probabilistic modeling for post-processing and validating PSMs (i.e., peptideProphet/Percolator) allows for the reliable identification of an increased number of peptides, even when faced with increased search spaces.
Based on this observation, we aimed to establish a data analysis workflow that would allow to exploit these capacities of modern algorithms for the large-scale identification and quantitation of products of proteolytic processing from shotgun proteomics data (without biochemical enrichment) and place this information into biological and clinical context.
General experimental information
In order to showcase the capabilities of modern bioformatics tools in combination with our data analysis approach to extract information related to proteolytic processing from shotgun proteomics data (i.e. without biochemical enrichment), we used a mouse model of polycystic kidney disease (PKD) and isobaric labeling at the protein level.
In brief, protein was extracted from 11 Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples and directly labeled before trypsin digestion using TMT 11plex. Using this approach, we aimed to identify and quantify both native and neo N-termini; in the later case, assuming that peptides TMT-labelled at their N-termini would be those coming from intrinsic proteolytic processing.
Short description of database search and quantitation approach
We used the FragPipe (v17.1) bioinformatic pipeline for database search, re-scoring and quantitation.
In brief, we used MSFragger for peptide-to-spectrum matching against canonical mouse sequences (EBI reference proteomes, version 2021_04). We used argc semi-specificity (cleavage only at R), based on the assumption that trypsin would not cleave at K after TMT labeling. Acetylation at peptide N-term and TMT-labeling at N-term where both set as variable modifications. TMT at K and carbamidomethylation of C were set as fixed modifications.
MSBooster was to predict spectra and retention times which were used as an input for Percolator for probabilistic rescoring and FDR control of peptide identifications.
The TMT-integrator module was used for extraction and normalization of quantitative information from MS2 reporter ions.
Required data and R packages
Fragterminomics installation and/or loading
if (!require("Fragterminomics", quietly = TRUE))
{
devtools::install_github("MiguelCos/Fragterminomics")
}
library(Fragterminomics)
Required R packages
## Required packages ----
library(tidyverse)
library(kableExtra)
library(limma)
library(clusterProfiler)
library(org.Mm.eg.db)
library(here)
library(janitor)
library(drawProteins)
library(seqinr)
library(ggpubr)
library(ggrepel)
library(DEP)
library(SummarizedExperiment)
library(dagLogo)
library(pheatmap)
library(RColorBrewer)
Required data
The main input data for downstream analysis is the psm.tsv file
generated by FragPipe. This include peptide modification information
that is used for the identification and categorization of N-termini. For
N-termini mapping and annotation, we use either the fasta file used for
the peptide identification search, or the one containing the identified
proteins, generated by FragPipe (protein.fas).
# loading the psm.tsv file
psm_tsv <- read_tsv(here("data-raw/psm.tsv"))
fasta <- read.fasta(file = here("data-raw/protein.fas"),
seqtype = "AA",
as.string = TRUE)
Sample annotation data
We need a file that provides information regarding the sample names, the TMT channel used for labeling, and the experimental condition. This file is used for downstream analysis and plotting.
Our starting annotation file is the annotation.txt used for the
TMT-integrator module in FragPipe. Here we generate a modified version
of this file, with the information required for downstream analysis. It
is important that the sample label in the annotation file matches the
name of the quantitative columns in the psm.tsv file.
# load data
sample_annotation <- read_delim(here("data-raw/annotation.txt"),
col_names = FALSE)
# genearate condition column
sample_annotation2 <- sample_annotation %>%
dplyr::mutate(channel = X1,
condition = str_remove_all(string = `X2`,
pattern = "[0-9]"),
label = X2) %>%
dplyr::select(-c(X1,
X2))
sample_annotation3 <- sample_annotation %>%
dplyr::rename(channel = X1,
sample = X2)
Data pre-processing
Summarization of modified peptides from PSMs
Since we start our analysis based on PSM identifications from the
psm.tsv file, we need first to summarize the information at the
modified peptide level.
The summarization of modified peptides from PSMs is based on a ‘best PSM’ criteria:
- keep only psms with summed TMT intensity > 0
- keep only psms with peptideProphet prob > X (user defined)
- keep only psms with purity > X /* (user defined)
- if several PSMs map to the same modified peptide, select one with best Purity
- if a modified peptide was identified with several PSMs and same high purity then select the PSMs with highest summed TMT intensity.
We wrapped a function for this pre-processing step
(psmtsv_to_modified_peptides):
modif_peptides <- psmtsv_to_modified_peptides(psms = psm_tsv,
annot = sample_annotation3,
peptide_probability = 0.9,
minimal_purity = 0.5)
# generate a data frame mapping protein IDs to genes
prot2gene <- modif_peptides %>%
dplyr::select(Protein = `Protein ID`,
Gene = Gene,
Description = `Protein Description`)
Correction for isobaric impurity and median centering the reporter ion intensities
The TMT reporter ion intensities are corrected for isobaric impurity and
median centered. This is done using the purify_n_normalize function.
purified_peptide_data <- purify_n_normalize(psms = modif_peptides,
annot = sample_annotation3)
Annotation of peptide specificities
Based on our generated modified_peptides object (summary of modified
peptides from PSMs), we can now annotate the peptide specificities. This
is done using the annotate_peptides function.
We need to provide the fasta file used for the peptide identification
search, or the one containing the identified proteins, generated by
FragPipe (protein.fas). We have this stored in our fasta object.
Currently the function only supports fasta files with Uniprot formatted
headers.
We also need to provide a data frame associating peptides sequences to
Uniprot protein IDs, as defined in the fasta file. The protein ID column
should be named Genes and the peptide sequence column should be named
Peptide. We can generate such data as follows from the
modif_peptides object:
# select peptide and genes (protein) column for the annotation
peptide2protein <- modif_peptides %>%
# generate new Genes column from `Protein ID` one
mutate(Genes = str_trim(`Protein ID`)) %>%
dplyr::select(Peptide,
Genes)
Finally, the used should provide the specificity of the protease used
for the digestion. This is done by providing a regular expression that
defines the specificity of the protease. For example, for trypsin, we
would use R|K (cleavage after R or K).
if(!file.exists(here("report/outputs/annotated_best_psm_modified_peptide.tsv"))){
annotated_peptides <- annotate_peptides(peptide2protein = peptide2protein,
fasta = fasta,
specificity = "R|K",
decoy_tag = "^rev")
write_tsv(x = annotated_peptides,
file = here("report/outputs/annotated_best_psm_modified_peptide.tsv"))
} else {
annotated_peptides <- read_tsv(file = here("report/outputs/annotated_best_psm_modified_peptide.tsv"))
}
Annotate peptide N-termini
Starting from the modified_peptides object, we first merge with the
specificity annotation table, and then annotation the N-termini based on
the type of modification.
# merge the modified_peptides table and the annotated peptides table
annotated_best_psms <- left_join(modif_peptides,
annotated_peptides %>%
# remane column to protein_id for merging
dplyr::rename(`Protein ID` = protein_id)) %>%
clean_names() %>%
distinct() %>%
dplyr::select(-c(starts_with("wt"),
starts_with("ko"),
starts_with("mt"))) %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
dplyr::relocate("protein_id_modif_pep",
.before = peptide)
The annotate_nterm function is used to annotate the N-termini based on
the type of modification, currently tailored towards TMT labeling. The
user needs to define the expected tmtmass.
nterannot <- annotate_nterm(annotated_best_psms,
tmtmass = 304.2072)
Visualization of peptide counts by N-terminal modification and specificity
We first generate counts for each type of N-terminal modification and
specificity. This is done using the nterannot object.
annot_counts <- nterannot %>%
# count peptides by semi_type and nterm
dplyr::count(semi_type,
nterm) %>%
# add a column with the total number of peptides
mutate(total = sum(n)) %>%
# add a column with the percentage of peptides
mutate(perc = n/total * 100) %>%
# create a category column merging semi_type and nterm
mutate(category = paste(semi_type,
nterm,
sep = "_"))
… and prepare the data for visualization. In this case, we will focus on N-terminally truncated peptides for the visualization.
# new version of the annot_counts - summing semi_Cternm TMT-labelled and semi_Cterm free
annot_counts_v2 <- annot_counts %>%
mutate(category = case_when(category == "semi_Cterm_free" ~ "semi_Cterm",
category == "semi_Cterm_TMT-labelled" ~ "semi_Cterm",
TRUE ~ category)) %>%
filter(!str_detect(semi_type, "semi_Cterm")) %>%
group_by(category) %>%
summarise(n = sum(n),
total = sum(total),
perc = n/total * 100) %>%
ungroup() %>%
mutate(semi_type = case_when(str_detect(category, "semi_Cterm") ~ "semi_Cterm",
str_detect(category, "semi_Nterm") ~ "semi_Nterm",
TRUE ~ "specific"),
nterm = case_when(str_detect(category, "TMT") ~ "TMT-labelled",
str_detect(category, "acetylated") ~ "acetylated",
str_detect(category, "semi_Cterm") ~ "free",
TRUE ~ "free"))
ggplot(annot_counts_v2,
aes(x = n,
y = category,
fill = semi_type)) +
geom_col() +
geom_text(aes(label = n),
hjust = -0.2,
size = 2.5) +
labs(y = "N-termini",
x = "Number of peptides",
fill = "Semi-specificity")
Annotation of protein termini by Uniprot-annotated processing information
After annotating the peptide N-termini, we can annotate the protein N-termini based on Uniprot-annotated processing information.
We make use of the drawProteins package for this, which allows to
extract Uniprot-annotated protein features from the Uniprot database via
API access.
First, we get the list of Uniprot IDs from which we want to extract processing information from.
protein_nter <- nterannot %>%
clean_names() %>%
dplyr::select(protein_id,
peptide,
semi_type,
specificity,
is_terminal,
last_aa,
aa_before,
start_position,
end_position,
protein_length) %>%
dplyr::filter(str_detect(protein_id,
pattern = "Biognosys",
negate = TRUE),
specificity == "semi_specific")
protein_ids_nter <- protein_nter$protein_id %>%
unique()
Then, we extract the Uniprot-annotated processing information for each
protein ID. This is done using the get_features function from the
drawProteins package.
if(!file.exists(here("report/outputs/uniprot_features_pkd.rds"))){
uniprot_features <- purrr::map(.x = protein_ids_nter,
.f = drawProteins::get_features)
write_rds(uniprot_features,
file = here("report/outputs/uniprot_features_pkd.rds"))
} else {
uniprot_features <- read_rds(here("report/outputs/uniprot_features_pkd.rds"))
}
… and merge the output into a data frame format.
df_uniprot_features <- purrr::map(uniprot_features,
drawProteins::feature_to_dataframe)
df_features <- bind_rows(df_uniprot_features)
Finally, we annotate the protein N-termini based on the
Uniprot-annotated processing information. This is done using the
categorize_nterm function. This will generate a list including tabular
information and a visualization of the counts of N-termini by
Uniprot-annotated processing type and N-terminal modification.
categorized_termnini <- categorize_nterm(annotated_peptides = nterannot,
uniprot_features = df_uniprot_features,
distinct = TRUE)
Visualization of N-termini counts by Uniprot-annotated processing type
print(categorized_termnini$ntermini_category_plot)
Quantitative analysis of Semi-specific peptides
After annotation, we can use the standardized quantitative information to evaluate the differential abundance of semi-specific peptides or proteolytic products between conditions.
Set up the SummarizedExperiment object
For reproducibility and to facilitate downstream analysis, we will use
the SummarizedExperiment class to store the quantitative information.
This type of object allows to store column metadata (sample condition
and experimental design) together with row metadata (peptide
annotation).
Our experimental_design object contains the sample condition and
experimental design information. This is used to generate the
SummarizedExperiment object.
experimental_design <- sample_annotation2 %>%
filter(condition != "MT") %>%
mutate(replicate = channel)
SummarizedExperiment for scaled abundances
# peptide summary
pure_pet_nona_matrix <- purified_peptide_data$normalized_purif_matrix %>%
dplyr::select(-starts_with("MT")) %>%
column_to_rownames("protein_peptidemod") %>%
na.omit() %>%
as.matrix()
# select modified peptide annotations in the right order from the nterannot object.
annotated_best_psms_nona <- nterannot %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in% rownames(pure_pet_nona_matrix))
# create summarized experiment object for non-NA peptides (pure_pet_nona_matrix)
# and non-NA proteins (annotated_best_psms_nona)
data_pept_pur_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = list(counts = pure_pet_nona_matrix),
colData = experimental_design,
rowData = annotated_best_psms_nona
)
SummarizedExperiment for unscaled abundances
# peptide summary
pure_raw_pet_nona_matrix <- purified_peptide_data$purified_pept_quant %>%
dplyr::select(-starts_with("MT")) %>%
dplyr::select(-c("Modified Peptide",
"Peptide",
"Protein ID",
"Is Unique")) %>%
column_to_rownames("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
na.omit() %>%
as.matrix()
annotated_best_psms_raw_pure_nona <- nterannot %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in% rownames(pure_raw_pet_nona_matrix))
# create summarized experiment object
data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = list(counts = pure_raw_pet_nona_matrix),
colData = experimental_design,
rowData = annotated_best_psms_raw_pure_nona
)
% of total summed abundance of semi-specific peptides by the total summed abundance of all peptides (raw intensities)
As an exemplary exploratory analysis, we showcase the calculation of the percentage of total summed abundance of semi-specific peptides by the total summed abundance of all peptides (raw intensities).
This can be used as a proxy to evaluate the relative abundance of proteolytic products between experimental conditions.
# extract peptide level data from summarized experiment object
mat_df_rawpur_nona <- as.data.frame(assay(data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona))
col_dat_df_rawpur_nona <- data.frame(colData(data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona))
row_dat_df_rawpur_nona <- data.frame(rowData(data_pept_raw_pur_se_nona))
# transform into long format
mat_df_rawpur_nona_long <- mat_df_rawpur_nona %>%
tibble::rownames_to_column("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
tidyr::pivot_longer(cols = where(is.numeric),
names_to = "label",
values_to = "Intensity") %>%
dplyr::left_join(., col_dat_df_rawpur_nona,
by = "label") %>%
dplyr::left_join(., row_dat_df_rawpur_nona,
by = "protein_id_modif_pep")
# use the long format data to plot the distribution of normalized abundances
# of proteolytic products
# filter long data to keep only proteolytic products
mat_df_rawpur_nona_long_proteolytic <- mat_df_rawpur_nona_long %>%
dplyr::filter(specificity == "semi_specific",
nterm == "TMT-labelled")
pept_summ_rawpur_semi_1 <- mat_df_rawpur_nona_long_proteolytic %>%
group_by(label, condition) %>%
summarise(`Summed Abundances Semis` = sum(Intensity, na.rm = TRUE))
# get the summ of all peptides per sample/condition
pept_summ_rawpur_all <- mat_df_rawpur_nona_long %>%
group_by(label, condition) %>%
summarise(`Summer Abundances Total` = sum(Intensity, na.rm = TRUE))
# merge the two data frames to get the normalized abundances of proteolytic products
pept_summ_rawpur_semi_3 <- pept_summ_rawpur_semi_1 %>%
dplyr::left_join(., pept_summ_rawpur_all,
by = c("label", "condition")) %>%
mutate(`% of Semi/Total Abundances` = `Summed Abundances Semis`/`Summer Abundances Total` * 100 )
ggplot(pept_summ_rawpur_semi_3,
aes(x = condition,
y = `% of Semi/Total Abundances`,
fill = condition)) +
geom_boxplot() +
# add jittered dots for data points
geom_jitter(width = 0.2,
height = 0,
alpha = 0.5,
size = 1) +
geom_signif(
comparisons = list(c("WT", "KO")),
map_signif_level = TRUE
) +
stat_compare_means(method="wilcox.test") +
labs(x = "Condition",
y = "% Protelytic products abundance",
title = "%Tot. semis/Tot. all")
Differential abundance analysis of semi-specific peptides (without protein-level normalization)
Now we can move forward with differential abundance analysis, to pinpoint proteolytic products that are differentially abundant between experimental conditions.
In first instance, we perform the differential abundance analysis with standardized abundances ‘as is’, without protein-level normalization. This means, we compare the abundance of peptides between conditions, disregarding the abundance of the proteins they belong to. This can be consired a ‘global’ approach for the differential abundance analysis. Nevertheless, when using this approach many differentially abundant proteolytic products would not represent differential proteolysis, but rather differential protein abundance.
As a proxy to evaluate differential proteolysis, we would need to perform the differential abundance analysis after correcting peptide abundances by the abundances of the proteins they belong to. This is done in the next section.
We use the limma package for this purpose. We first generate an
expression matrix and a design matrix including experimental information
for the comparisons, and then run the differential abundance analysis.
After linear model fitting, we apply a feature-specific FDR correction focusing specifically on interesting features defined as proteolytic products.
Prep expression matrix
mat <- assay(data_pept_pur_se_nona) %>%
na.omit()
Set up design matrix
# extract the condition from the colData of the summarized experiment object
condition <- colData(data_pept_pur_se_nona)$condition
design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + condition)
rownames(design) <- rownames(colData(data_pept_pur_se_nona))
colnames(design) <- c("KO",
"WT")
Run differential abundance analysis
fit <- lmFit(object = mat,
design = design,
method = "robust")
cont.matrix <- makeContrasts(
KO_vs_WT = KO-WT,
levels = design)
fit2 <- contrasts.fit(fit,
cont.matrix)
fit2 <- eBayes(fit2)
Generate topTable with comparison results
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma <- topTable(fit = fit2,
coef = "KO_vs_WT",
number = Inf,
adjust.method = "BH") %>%
rownames_to_column("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
separate(col = protein_id_modif_pep,
into = c("protein_id",
"modified_peptide"),
sep = "\\_",
remove = FALSE)
Results of comparison and feature-specific FDR correction
First we need to define which features or modified peptides from our abundance matrix will be considered as proteolytic products.
We start by excluding non interesting data.
not_interesting_features <- c("charge", "retention",
"observed_mass", "calibrated_observed_mass",
"observed_m_z", "calibrated_observed_m_z",
"calculated_peptide_mass", "calculated_m_z",
"delta_mass", "intensity", "purity")
And then define what we consider as proteolytic products based on the
rowData from our data_pept_pur_se_nona SummarizedExperiment object.
In this case, we will define as proteolytic products or ‘neo-N-termini’ every semi-specific peptide that was labelled with TMT in the N-termini (see code below).
peptide_data_annotation <- as.data.frame(rowData(data_pept_pur_se_nona)) %>%
mutate(neo_termini_status = case_when((nterm == "TMT-labelled" &
specificity == "semi_specific") ~ "neo_termini",
TRUE ~ "not_neo_termini")) %>%
dplyr::select(-all_of(not_interesting_features))
Now we can define the interesting features for the feature-specific FDR correction:
# select columns with features to evaluate
# from the table mapping modified peptides to annotations
features <- peptide_data_annotation
# keep only peptides with interesting features
interesting_features <- features %>%
dplyr::rename(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
filter(neo_termini_status == "neo_termini") %>%
distinct()
And apply our function feature_fdr_correction:
compar_tab_feat_fdr <- feature_fdr_correction(toptable = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma,
interesting_features_table = interesting_features,
method = "BH") %>%
distinct()
We can ‘decorate’ the comparison results with further information about the outcome of the differential abundance analysis, and merge the comparison results with the peptide annotation information
compar_tab_feat_fdr <- compar_tab_feat_fdr %>%
left_join(.,peptide_data_annotation) %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
mutate(Feature = if_else(condition = adj.P.Val < 0.05 & fdr_correction == "feature-specific",
true = "Differentially abundant",
false = "Unchanged")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = case_when((Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC > 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Up-regulated",
(Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC < 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Down-regulated",
TRUE ~ "Unchanged/Specific")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = factor(Change_direction,
levels = c("Unchanged/Specific",
"Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated")))
Differential abundance analysis of semi-specific peptides (after protein-level normalization)
First we need to normalize the peptide abundances based on the
abundances of the proteins they belong to. This is done using the
peptide2protein_normalization function.
This function perform the next processing steps:
-
- Get a peptide abundance matrix (raw abundances).
-
- Summarize the abundances to protein abundances based on unique fully-specific peptides (this is optional but it’s set as such by default). This means: we assume that the abundance of a protein is represented by the abundance of its unique fully-specific peptides.
-
- Calculate the peptide to protein ratio.
-
- Calculate the fraction of abundance of each peptide which is representative of the whole protein abundance.
-
- Log2-transform this abundance values and normalize by median centering.
protein_normalized_peptides <- peptide2protein_normalization(peptides = purified_peptide_data$purified_pept_quant,
annot = sample_annotation3,
peptide_annot = annotated_best_psms,
summarize_by_specificity = TRUE)
Prep summarizedExperiment object from protein-normalized abundances
# peptide summary
pure_pet_protnorn_matrix <- protein_normalized_peptides$protein_normalized_pepts_scaled %>%
dplyr::select(-matches("_MT")) %>%
column_to_rownames("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
na.omit() %>%
as.matrix()
# select modified peptide annotations in the right order from the nterannot object.
annotated_best_psms_nona <- nterannot %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(protein_id,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_")) %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in% rownames(pure_pet_protnorn_matrix))
# create summarized experiment object for non-NA peptides (pure_pet_nona_matrix)
# and non-NA proteins (annotated_best_psms_nona)
data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = list(counts = pure_pet_protnorn_matrix),
colData = experimental_design,
rowData = annotated_best_psms_nona
)
Prep abundance matrix
mat_pept_protnorm <- assay(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona) %>%
na.omit()
Set up design matrix
condition <- colData(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona)$condition
design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + condition)
rownames(design) <- rownames(colData(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona))
colnames(design) <- c("KO",
"WT")
Run differential abundance analysis
fit_n1 <- lmFit(object = mat_pept_protnorm,
design = design,
method = "robust")
cont.matrix <- makeContrasts(KO_vs_WT = KO-WT,
levels = design)
fit_n2 <- contrasts.fit(fit_n1,
cont.matrix)
fit_n2 <- eBayes(fit_n2)
Generate topTable with comparison results
KO_vs_WT_pept_protein_normalized_limma <- topTable(fit = fit_n2,
coef = "KO_vs_WT",
number = Inf,
adjust.method = "BH") %>%
rownames_to_column("protein_id_modif_pep") %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
separate(col = protein_id_modif_pep,
into = c("protein_id",
"modified_peptide"),
sep = "\\_",
remove = FALSE)
Results of comparison and feature-specific FDR correction
Prepare the data frame of interesting features
#n1 refers to protein-normalized peptide intensities
peptide_data_n1_annotation <- as.data.frame(rowData(data_pept_protnorn_pur_se_nona)) %>%
mutate(neo_termini_status = case_when((nterm == "TMT-labelled" &
specificity == "semi_specific") ~ "neo_termini",
TRUE ~ "not_neo_termini")) %>%
dplyr::select(-all_of(not_interesting_features))
# select columns with features to evaluate
# from the table mapping modified peptides to annotations
features_n1 <- peptide_data_n1_annotation
# keep only peptides with interesting features
interesting_features_n1 <- features_n1 %>%
dplyr::rename(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
filter(neo_termini_status == "neo_termini") %>%
distinct
And apply our function feature_fdr_correction:
compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr1 <- feature_fdr_correction(toptable = KO_vs_WT_pept_protein_normalized_limma,
interesting_features_table = interesting_features_n1,
method = "BH") %>%
distinct()
… and ‘decorate’ the output limma table
compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr1 %>%
left_join(.,peptide_data_n1_annotation) %>%
mutate(index = protein_id_modif_pep) %>%
mutate(Feature = if_else(condition = adj.P.Val < 0.05 & fdr_correction == "feature-specific",
true = "Differentially abundant",
false = "Unchanged")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = case_when((Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC > 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Up-regulated",
(Feature == "Differentially abundant" &
logFC < 0) &
neo_termini_status == "neo_termini" ~ "Down-regulated",
TRUE ~ "Unchanged/Specific")) %>%
mutate(Change_direction = factor(Change_direction,
levels = c("Unchanged/Specific",
"Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated")))
Visualization of differential abundance results
We want now to quickly see the results of the differential abundance analysis. It is interesting to see how these change between protein-normalized abundances and non-normalized abundances.
Let’s first prepare the data for visualization.
# differentially and non-differentially abundant peptides from the non-protein-normalized data
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_diff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_feat_fdr %>%
filter(Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_feat_fdr %>%
filter(!Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
# differentially and non-differentially abundant peptides from the protein-normalized data
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr %>%
filter(Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr %>%
filter(!Change_direction %in% c("Up-regulated",
"Down-regulated"))
… generate the volcano plot objects
# non-normalized DE results
volcano_limma4 <- ggplot(compar_tab_feat_fdr,
aes(x = logFC,
y = -log10(adj.P.Val))) +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "grey") +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_diff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "red") +
geom_hline(yintercept = -log10(0.05),
color = "red",
linetype = "dashed") +
xlab("logFC(KO / WT)") +
labs(title = "Diff. abund w/o protein-level normalization\n
Feature-specific correction",
subtitle = paste("Differentially abundant features = ",
nrow(KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_diff_feat_spec_fdr)))
# protein-normalized DE results
volcano_pept_norm_limma3 <- ggplot(compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr,
aes(x = logFC,
y = -log10(adj.P.Val))) +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_nodiff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "grey") +
geom_point(data = KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr,
color = "red") +
geom_hline(yintercept = -log10(0.05),
color = "red",
linetype = "dashed") +
xlab("logFC(KO / WT)") +
labs(title = "Diff. abund after protein-level normalization\n
Feature-specific correction",
subtitle = paste("Differentially abundant features = ",
nrow(KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr)))
Visualize both plots side-by-side:
cowplot::plot_grid(volcano_limma4,
volcano_pept_norm_limma3,
nrow = 1)
We can observe that only keep 513 proteolytic products as differentially abundant after normalization by protein abundance. We consider these as those representing differential proteolysis.
Analysis of proteolytic patterns from differential proteolysis
We will now focus on the differentially abundant proteolytic products after normalization by protein abundance.
For the sake of this demonstrative workflow, we will focus on those proteolytic products shown as upregulated in the KO condition.
In order to evaluate the sequence patterns at the cleavage sites, we need to use the sequences of identified truncated peptides or neo-N-termini, to reconstruct peptide sequences of consistent length, representing the cleavage site in the central position.
We use the get_cleave_area function for this. It takes a peptide
annotation table generated by the annotate_peptides function, and
generate a new table with the cleavage area sequences.
We start by pulling out the upregulated proteolytic products from the limma table.
upregulated_neo_termini <- KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr %>%
filter(logFC > 0) %>%
mutate(Peptide = peptide)
We then use the get_cleave_area function to generate the cleavage area
sequences.
cleave_area <- get_cleave_area(upregulated_neo_termini)$cleave_area20
Now we have a data frame with the column cleave_area20, containing
sequences of 20 amino acid length with the cleavage site between the
10th and 11th amino acid.
We then need to prepare these sequences to be visualized in a heatmap, counting the number of times each amino acid appears in a given position.
We start by extracting the sequences of 20 amino acid length from the
cleave_area data frame.
cleave_area_seqs <- cleave_area %>%
pull(cleave_area20)
And then use the peptide_matrix_count function to transform the vector
of sequences into a matrix of counts.
upregulated_cleavage_area_counts <- peptide_matrix_count(cleave_area_seqs)
Finally we can use the pheatmap package to generate a heatmap
visualization of amino acid usage at the cleavage site.
pheatmap(upregulated_cleavage_area_counts$amino_acid_count,
cluster_rows = FALSE,
cluster_cols = FALSE,
main = "AA Counts - Based on increased proteolytic producs in KO",
color = colorRampPalette(brewer.pal(n = 9, name = "Reds"))(100))
We see that several of our up-regulated proteolytic products contain C or S at the P1 position.
Comparative analysis of neo-termini vs protein abundance
After differential abundance analysis of proteolytic products, we can compare the abundance of neo-termini with the abundance of the proteins they belong to. This can give us clues into the behavior of the proteolytic products in the context of the protein abundance, and help us to identify proteolytic products that are differentially abundant due to differential proteolysis, from those that are differentially abundant due to differential protein abundance.
We start by extracting the protein abundance information from the
protein_normalized_peptides object, and then extracting log2-fold
changes of protein abundance between conditions.
The sub-object summarized_protein_abundance_scaled contains a matrix
of scaled/normalized protein abundances calculated based on the
abundances of unique fully-specific peptides. These would better
represent the abundance of the proteins, by avoiding the inclusion of
semi-specific peptides that might be affected by differential
proteolysis.
log2FCs_proteins <- protein_normalized_peptides$summarized_protein_abundance_scaled %>%
# exclude columns representing empty TMT channels
dplyr::select(-matches("MT")) %>%
# reformat the data frame into a long format
pivot_longer(cols = ends_with("_prot"),
names_to = "sample",
values_to = "Abundance") %>%
# define sample and condition names for each quant observation per protein
mutate(sample = str_remove(sample,
"_prot")) %>%
mutate(condition = str_remove(sample,
"[0-9]")) %>%
dplyr::rename(Protein = protein_id) %>%
group_by(Protein, condition) %>%
# calculate the median abundance per protein per condition
summarise(median_abundance = median(Abundance, na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
# reformat into wide format
pivot_wider(id_cols = c("Protein"),
values_from = median_abundance,
names_from = condition) %>%
# merge with gene name annotation
left_join(., prot2gene) %>%
distinct() %>%
# calculate the logFC of protein abundance between conditions
mutate(logFC_fully_tryp_protein = log2(KO)-log2(WT))
We continue by extracting the neo-termini abundance information from the
protein_normalized_peptides object, and then extracting log2-fold
changes of neo-termini abundance between conditions.
The sub-object protein_normalized_pepts_scaled contains a matrix of
scaled/normalized neo-termini abundances normalized by protein abundance
(the latter calculated from fully-tryptic peptides). These would better
represent the abundance of the neo-termini, by correcting for the
abundance of the proteins they belong to, and would help better to make
inferences in terms of differential proteolysis.
log2FCs_peptides <- protein_normalized_peptides$protein_normalized_pepts_scaled %>%
# exclude columns representing empty TMT channels
dplyr::select(-matches("_MT")) %>%
# reformat the data frame into a long format
pivot_longer(cols = starts_with("fraction_int_pept"),
names_to = "sample",
values_to = "Abundance") %>%
# define sample and condition names for each quant observation per protein
mutate(sample = str_remove(sample,
"fraction_int_peptide2prot_")) %>%
mutate(condition = str_remove(sample,
"[0-9]")) %>%
# generate coolumns mapping modified peptides and protein IDs
separate(protein_id_modif_pep,
into = c("Protein", "modified_peptide"),
sep = "\\_",
remove = FALSE) %>%
# summarize median abundance per modified peptide per condition
group_by(Protein, modified_peptide, condition) %>%
summarise(median_abundance = median(Abundance, na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
ungroup() %>%
# reformat into wide format
pivot_wider(id_cols = c("Protein", "modified_peptide"),
values_from = median_abundance,
names_from = condition) %>%
# merge with gene name annotation
left_join(., prot2gene) %>%
distinct() %>%
# generate a column with the logFC of neo-termini abundance
# between conditions
mutate(logFC_peptides = log2(KO)-log2(WT))
We can then join the fold-changes of protein and neo-termini abundance into a single data frame.
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots <- left_join(log2FCs_proteins,
log2FCs_peptides,
by = c("Protein",
"Gene",
"Description"),
suffix = c("_protein",
"_peptide")) %>%
mutate(protein_id_modif_pep = paste(Protein,
modified_peptide,
sep = "_"))
Scatter plot of log2-fold changes of neo-termini vs protein abundance
We then generate a scatter plot of the log2-fold changes vs protein abundance, of the differentially abundant neo-termini that were identified during our differential abundance analysis.
First we filter to keep only the differentially abundant neo-termini.
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1 <- log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots %>%
filter(protein_id_modif_pep %in%
KO_vs_WT_peptides_limma_table_n1_diff_feat_spec_fdr$protein_id_modif_pep)
… and run a correlation test to evaluate the relationship between differentially abundant neo-termini and protein abundance.
cor_test_res_1 <- cor.test(log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1$logFC_peptides,
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1$logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
method = "pearson")
Then we generate the scatter plot.
ggplot(log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1,
aes(x = logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
y = logFC_peptides)) +
geom_smooth(method=lm,
se = FALSE,
linetype="dashed",
linewidth = 1,
color = "black") +
geom_point() +
annotate("text",
x = -0.25,
y = 2.5,
label = paste0("Pearson's R: ", round(cor_test_res_1$estimate, 2),
"\n",
"p-value: ", format(cor_test_res_1$p.value, scientific = TRUE)),
hjust = 0, vjust = 0) +
xlim(-0.3, 0.3) +
ylim(-3, 3) +
scale_color_manual(values = c("#2a9d8f", "red")) +
xlab("log2(FC) - Protein abundances") +
ylab("log2(FC) - Neo-termini") +
geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
theme(panel.background = element_rect(fill = "white"),
panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank()) +
ggtitle(label = "Diff. abund. neo-termini vs protein abundance")
With this visualization, we can then pinpoint proteolytic products that show a differential behavior compared to the abundance of their associated proteins.
Specifically in this plot, we can take proteolytic products of Cadherin-16 and Meprin A. These show increased abundance in KO, while their associated proteins show decreased abundance in KO.
We first filter the data frame containing the differentially abundant neo-termini to keep only those belonging to Cadherin-16 and Meprin A.
log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_mep1a_Cdh16 <- log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1 %>%
filter(Gene %in% c("Mep1a", "Cdh16"))
Then we visualize this selection.
ggplot(log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_1,
aes(x = logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
y = logFC_peptides)) +
geom_smooth(method=lm,
se = FALSE,
linetype="dashed",
linewidth = 1,
color = "black") +
geom_point() +
geom_point(
mapping = aes(
x = logFC_fully_tryp_protein,
y = logFC_peptides),
data = log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_mep1a_Cdh16,
size = 2,
color = "red"
) +
ggrepel::geom_label_repel(data = log2FCpept_vs_log2FCprots_mep1a_Cdh16,
aes(label = Gene),
size = 2.2,
color = "black") +
annotate("text",
x = -0.25,
y = 2.5,
label = paste0("Pearson's R: ", round(cor_test_res_1$estimate, 2),
"\n",
"p-value: ", format(cor_test_res_1$p.value, scientific = TRUE)),
hjust = 0, vjust = 0) +
xlim(-0.3, 0.3) +
ylim(-3, 3) +
scale_color_manual(values = c("#2a9d8f", "red")) +
xlab("log2(FC) - Protein abundances") +
ylab("log2(FC) - Neo-termini") +
geom_vline(xintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, linetype = "dashed") +
theme(panel.background = element_rect(fill = "white"),
panel.grid.major = element_blank(),
panel.grid.minor = element_blank()) +
ggtitle(label = "Diff. abund. neo-termini vs protein abundance")
Differential abundance analysis of protein abundance
One of the advantages of performing analyzes of proteolytic processing from shotgun proteomics data (without biochemical enrichment of N-/C- termini) is that we can perform differential statistics of both protein abundance and proteolytic processing from the same dataset. After performing differential abundance analyses on proteolytic products, we now want to explore the results at the protein level.
We will use the summarization of fully tryptic peptides to generate
normalized/scaled values of protein abundance to perform our
differential abundance analyses. The peptide2protein_normalization
function allow us to do this, by defining the argument
summarize_by_specificicty = TRUE.
protein_pept_prot_by_specific <- peptide2protein_normalization(peptides = purified_peptide_data$purified_pept_quant,
annot = sample_annotation3,
peptide_annot = annotated_best_psms,
summarize_by_specificity = TRUE)
We start by extracting the protein abundance information from the
protein_normalized_peptides object, and from data we prepare and
experimental design matrix that can be further use for our limma
analyses.
# prep df
protein_mat_df <- protein_pept_prot_by_specific$summarized_protein_abundance_scaled %>%
dplyr::select(-matches("MT")) %>%
column_to_rownames(var = "protein_id") %>%
na.omit()
# transform into matrix
protein_mat <- as.matrix(protein_mat_df)
# set minimal experimental design data frame from matrix column names
experimental_design_prot <- as.data.frame(colnames(protein_mat)) %>%
dplyr::mutate(sample = str_remove(colnames(protein_mat), "_prot")) %>%
dplyr::mutate(condition = str_remove(sample, "[0-9]")) %>%
dplyr::select(sample, condition)
row_data_proteins <- rownames(protein_mat)
# prepare SummarizedExperiment object for protein abundances
data_prot_protnorn_se_nona <- SummarizedExperiment(
assays = protein_mat,
colData = experimental_design_prot,
rowData = row_data_proteins
)
We then prepare the design matrix and execute the differential abundance analysis.
condition <- colData(data_prot_protnorn_se_nona)$condition
design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + condition)
rownames(design) <- rownames(colData(data_prot_protnorn_se_nona))
colnames(design) <- c("KO",
"WT")
fit_prot <- lmFit(object = assay(data_prot_protnorn_se_nona),
design = design,
method = "robust")
cont.matrix <- makeContrasts(KO_vs_WT = KO-WT,
levels = design)
fit_prot2 <- contrasts.fit(fit_prot,
cont.matrix)
fit_prot2 <- eBayes(fit_prot2)
… and generate the topTable and volcano visualization with the
comparison results.
# generate limma toptable
KO_vs_WT_protein_limma <- topTable(fit = fit_prot2,
coef = "KO_vs_WT",
number = Inf,
adjust.method = "BH") %>%
rownames_to_column("Protein") %>%
left_join(., distinct(prot2gene)) %>%
mutate(Feature = case_when(
adj.P.Val < 0.05 ~ "Differentially abundant",
TRUE ~ "Not diff. abund.")) %>%
#exclude not interesting columns
dplyr::select(-c("B", "t", "AveExpr"))
ggplot(KO_vs_WT_protein_limma,
aes(x = logFC,
y = -log10(adj.P.Val),
color = Feature)) +
geom_point() +
geom_hline(yintercept = -log10(0.05),
color = "red",
linetype = "dashed") +
xlab("logFC(KO / WT)") +
labs(title = "Differential abundance analysis (proteins)",
subtitle = paste("Differentially abundant proteins = ", sum(KO_vs_WT_protein_limma$Feature == "Differentially abundant"))) +
scale_color_manual(values = c("red", "grey")) +
theme(legend.position = "bottom")
Generate tabular summary of results
As a way to explore the results of the differential abundance analysis of proteolytic processing in the context of the context of protein abundance, we will generate a tabular summary of the results.
We start by generating cleavage area annotations from the idenfied semi-specific peptides, and merge it with differential abundance analysis results from proteolytic products.
clevage_areas_semi_pepts <- get_cleave_area(annotated_peptides)$cleave_area20 %>%
# select interesting features/columns
dplyr::select(
protein_id, protein_description, peptide = Peptide, semi_type, is_terminal,
cleavage_site, short_cleavage_site, cleave_area20
)
# get interesting features from limma terminomics Results
limma_terminomics_summary <- compar_tab_pept_protein_normalized_feat_fdr %>%
# select interesting features/columns
dplyr::select(
protein_id_modif_pep, protein_id, modified_peptide, peptide,
logFC, P.Value, adj.P.Val, Feature, Change_direction, neo_termini_status,protein_length, start_position, end_position,
next_aa, nterm, tmt_tag, last_aa, aa_after, aa_before, prev_aa,
neo_termini_status, fdr_correction
)
# merge limma terminomics results with cleavage area annotations
limma_terminomics_prot_norm <- left_join(
limma_terminomics_summary,
clevage_areas_semi_pepts,
) %>%
distinct() %>%
dplyr::relocate(
"protein_description", .before = modified_peptide
) %>%
filter(neo_termini_status == "neo_termini")
We then merge the terminomics differential abundance analyses with the protein-level differential abundance analysis.
merged_semis_n_proteomics <- left_join(
limma_terminomics_prot_norm,
KO_vs_WT_protein_limma,
by = c("protein_id" = "Protein",
"protein_description" = "Description" ),
suffix = c("_terminome", "_proteome")
) %>%
dplyr::relocate(
Gene, .after = protein_id
)
… and save the results in a tab-separated file for further exploration.
write_tsv(
x = limma_terminomics_prot_norm,
file = here("report/outputs/limma_merged_terminomics_and_proteomics.tsv")
)
R Package Documentation
Browse R Packages
We want your feedback!
Note that we can't provide technical support on individual packages. You should contact the package authors for that.
Embedding an R snippet on your website
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.