Benchmarking SILAC Proteomics Workflows and Data Analysis Platforms

Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) is a powerful metabolic labeling technique with broad applications and various study designs. SILAC proteomics relies on the accurate identification and quantification of all isotopic versions of proteins and peptides during both data acquisition and analysis. However, a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of SILAC data analysis platforms is currently lacking. To address this critical gap and offer practical guidelines for SILAC proteomics data analysis, we designed a comprehensive benchmarking pipeline to evaluate various in vitro SILAC workflows and commonly used data analysis software. Ten different SILAC data analysis workflows using five software packages (MaxQuant, Proteome Discoverer, FragPipe, DIA-NN, and Spectronaut) were evaluated for static and dynamic SILAC labeling with both DDA and DIA methods. For benchmarking, we used both in-house generated and repository SILAC proteomics datasets from HeLa and neuron culture samples. We assessed 12 performance metrics for SILAC proteomics including identification, quantification, accuracy, precision, reproducibility, filtering criteria, missing values, false discovery rate, protein half-life measurement, data completeness, unique software features, and speed of data analysis. Each method/software has its strengths and weaknesses when evaluated for these performance metrics. Most software reaches a dynamic range limit of 100-fold for accurate quantification of light/heavy ratios. We do not recommend using Proteome Discoverer for SILAC DDA analysis despite its wide use in label-free proteomics. To achieve greater confidence in SILAC quantification, researchers could use more than one software packages to analyze the same dataset for cross-validation. In summary, this study offers the first systematic evaluation of various SILAC data analysis platforms, providing practical guidelines to support decision-making in SILAC proteomics study design and data analysis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcpro.2025.100980
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.27

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmarking SILAC Proteomics Workflows and Data Analysis Platforms

Ashley M. Frankenfield, Fengchao Yu, Edwin Lo, Ling Hao et al.
3 citations
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
2.27
article

Benchmarking SILAC Proteomics Workflows and Data Analysis Platforms

Ashley M. Frankenfield, Fengchao Yu, Edwin Lo, Ling Hao, Wan Nur Atiqah binti Mazli, Jamison Shih, Kevin Yang, Alexey I. Nesvizhskii
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) is a powerful metabolic labeling technique with broad applications and various study designs. SILAC proteomics relies on the accurate identification and quantification of all isotopic versions of proteins and peptides during both data acquisition and analysis. However, a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of SILAC data analysis platforms is currently lacking. To address this critical gap and offer practical guidelines for SILAC proteomics data analysis, we designed a comprehensive benchmarking pipeline to evaluate various in vitro SILAC workflows and commonly used data analysis software. Ten different SILAC data analysis workflows using five software packages (MaxQuant, Proteome Discoverer, FragPipe, DIA-NN, and Spectronaut) were evaluated for static and dynamic SILAC labeling with both DDA and DIA methods. For benchmarking, we used both in-house generated and repository SILAC proteomics datasets from HeLa and neuron culture samples. We assessed 12 performance metrics for SILAC proteomics including identification, quantification, accuracy, precision, reproducibility, filtering criteria, missing values, false discovery rate, protein half-life measurement, data completeness, unique software features, and speed of data analysis. Each method/software has its strengths and weaknesses when evaluated for these performance metrics. Most software reaches a dynamic range limit of 100-fold for accurate quantification of light/heavy ratios. We do not recommend using Proteome Discoverer for SILAC DDA analysis despite its wide use in label-free proteomics. To achieve greater confidence in SILAC quantification, researchers could use more than one software packages to analyze the same dataset for cross-validation. In summary, this study offers the first systematic evaluation of various SILAC data analysis platforms, providing practical guidelines to support decision-making in SILAC proteomics study design and data analysis.

Molecular & Cellular ProteomicsVol. 24(6)
George Washington University (US), University of Michigan (US), University of Chicago (US), Michigan Medicine (US), University of Maryland, College Park (US)
National Cancer Center, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
2.27
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.