Proteomics

Dataset Information

0

Comparison of two solid-phase extraction (SPE) methods for the identification and quantification of porcine retinal protein markers by LC MS/MS


ABSTRACT: Proper sample preparation protocols represent a critical step for LC-MS-based proteomic study designs and influence the speed, performance and automation of high-throughput data acquisition. The main objective of this study was to compare two commercial solid phase extraction (SPE)-based sample preparation protocols (comprising SOLAµTM HRP SPE spin plates from Thermo Fisher Scientific and ZIPTIP® C18 pipette tips from Merck Millipore) for analytical performance, reproducibility and analysis speed. The house swine represents a promising animal model for studying human eye diseases including glaucoma and provides excellent requirements for the qualitative and quantitative MS-based comparison in terms of ocular proteomics. In total 6 technical replicates of two protein fractions [extracted with 0.1% dodecyl-ß-maltoside (DDM) or 1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)] of porcine retinal tissues were subjected to in-gel trypsin digestion and purified with both SPE-based workflows (N=3) prior to LC-MS analysis. On average, 550±70 proteins (1512±199 peptides) and 305±48 proteins (806±144 peptides) were identified from DDM and TFA protein fractions, respectively, after ZIPTIP® purification, and SOLAµTM workflow resulted in the detection of 513±55 proteins (1347±180 peptides) and 300±33 proteins (722±87 peptides), respectively (FDR<1%). Venn diagram analysis revealed an average overlap of 65±2% (DDM fraction) and 69±4% (TFA fraction) in protein identifications between both SPE-based methods. Quantitative analysis of 25 glaucoma-related protein markers also showed no significant differences (P>0.05) regarding protein recovery between both SPE methods. However, only glaucoma-associated marker MECP2 showed a significant (P=0.02) higher abundance in ZIPTIP®-purified replicates in comparison to SOLAµTM-treated study samples. Nevertheless, this result was not confirmed in the verification experiment using in-gel trypsin digestion of recombinant MECP2 (P=0.24). In conclusion, both SPE-based purification methods worked equally well in terms of analytical performance and reproducibility, whereas the analysis speed and the semi automation of the SOLAµTM spin plates workflow is much more convenient in comparison to the ZIPTIP® C18 method.

INSTRUMENT(S): LTQ Orbitrap

ORGANISM(S): Homo Sapiens (human) Sus Scrofa Domesticus (domestic Pig)

SUBMITTER: Carsten Schmelter  

LAB HEAD: Carsten Schmelter

PROVIDER: PXD011755 | Pride | 2018-12-03

REPOSITORIES: Pride

Dataset's files

Source:
Action DRS
DDM_SOLA_Lane1_S1.RAW Raw
DDM_SOLA_Lane1_S10.RAW Raw
DDM_SOLA_Lane1_S11.RAW Raw
DDM_SOLA_Lane1_S12.RAW Raw
DDM_SOLA_Lane1_S13.RAW Raw
Items per page:
1 - 5 of 206
altmetric image

Publications

Comparison of Two Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Methods for the Identification and Quantification of Porcine Retinal Protein Markers by LC-MS/MS.

Schmelter Carsten C   Funke Sebastian S   Treml Jana J   Beschnitt Anja A   Perumal Natarajan N   Manicam Caroline C   Pfeiffer Norbert N   Grus Franz H FH  

International journal of molecular sciences 20181203 12


Proper sample preparation protocols represent a critical step for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)-based proteomic study designs and influence the speed, performance and automation of high-throughput data acquisition. The main objective of this study was to compare two commercial solid-phase extraction (SPE)-based sample preparation protocols (comprising SOLAµ<sup>TM</sup> HRP SPE spin plates from Thermo Fisher Scientific and ZIPTIP<sup>®</sup> C18 pipette tips from Merck Millipor  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

2019-08-15 | PXD014718 | Pride
2022-11-09 | PXD034046 | Pride
2023-08-01 | PXD038373 | Pride
2017-10-09 | PXD007191 | Pride
2022-06-22 | GSE206676 | GEO
2020-10-27 | GSE135656 | GEO
2020-10-27 | GSE135654 | GEO
2016-12-16 | GSE91077 | GEO
| PRJNA283604 | ENA
2021-10-06 | GSE172381 | GEO