Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Quantitative comparison of deparaffinisation, rehydration and extraction methods for FFPE tissue proteomics and phosphoproteomics

ABSTRACT: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues are suitable for proteomic and phosphoproteomic biomarker studies by data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry. The sample preparation method chosen influences the number, intensity, and reproducibility of identifications. By comparing the performance of four deparaffinisation and rehydration methods, we found that heptane and methanol quantified the most protein groups whilst the most widely used xylene and ethanol quantified the least. We then modified five extraction methods from the literature based on their diverse lysis and digestion conditions before evaluating their performance using rat organs of the kidney, leg muscle, lung, and testis. All methods performed well except for SP3, that struggled with tissue lysis. Heat n’ Beat was the fastest, had the highest digestion efficiency, quantified protein groups, and lowest coefficient of variation across replicates. Strap produced the highest peptide yield and SPEED produced a ultraviolet quantitation interference. TFE produced the highest phosphoprecursor intensity with a 10-15% higher enrichment efficiency. We demonstrate that the choice of extraction method has a larger impact on the phosphoproteome than the proteome. We conclude by providing recommendations for choosing the most appropriate method for different settings.

INSTRUMENT(S): Q Exactive HF

ORGANISM(S): Rattus Norvegicus (rat)

TISSUE(S): Testis, Lung, Kidney

SUBMITTER: Erin Humphries

LAB HEAD: Phillip J. Robinson

PROVIDER: PXD049062 | Pride | 2024-08-06

REPOSITORIES: Pride

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Optimizing RNA Extraction Methods for High Throughput Transcriptome Sequencing of Fresh Frozen and Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Cardiac Tissues Specimens

Project description:In this study, the efficiency of four RNA extraction methods was compared on 23 FFPE cardiac tissue specimens. The Qiagen AllPrep DNA/RNA FFPE kit (Method QP), Qiagen AllPrep DNA/RNA FFPE kit, with protocol modification on the ethanol wash step after deparaffinization (Method QE), CELLDATA RNAstorm 2.0 FFPE RNA Extraction kit (Method BP) and CELLDATA RNAstorm 2.0 FFPE RNA Extraction Kit with protocol modifications on the lysis step (Method BL). In comparing RNA quality metrics across FFPE RNA extract, nucleic acids extracted with Method QE and QP had the highest RNA yield. However, Method QE outperformed Method QP as more extract from Method QE had DV 200 values above 30%. Both method BL and BP produced a similar range of RNA purity and yield but more extract from Method BL had DV 200 values above 30% compared to Method BP. When accessing distribution value, Method BL outperformed Methods BP, QE, and QP as more extracts from Method BL had DV 200 values above 30% (16/23 samples) compared to other methods (PDV200<0.001; Kruskal-Wallis). However, method QE outperformed other methods in terms of RNA yield. The sequencing performance of RNA extracts from Method QE and Method BL was further tested on 8 matching samples with high RNA yield and high DV200 value respectively. RNA extracts from Method QE which yielded the highest RNA quantity among all methods exhibited comparable sequencing performance to extract obtained through Method BL, which yielded extract with high DV200 value. This study suggests that the DV200 and RNA yield are both reliable pre-analytic metrics in determining a suitable method for successful transcriptome sequencing of FFPE samples and have important implications for future studies exploring transcriptome sequencing of FFPE cardiac specimens.

2024-05-23 | GSE267659 | GEO

Comparison of SPEED, S-Trap, and In-Solution based sample preparation methods for tandem mass spectrometry

Project description:Bottom-up proteomic analyses rely on efficient protein extraction from tissue and proteolysis into peptides for mass spectrometry. Commonly used detergent-based strategies aid cell lysis and protein solubilization but are poorly compatible with downstream protein digestion and liquid chromatography-coupled mass spectrometry. Consequently, additional sample purification and buffer exchange steps are required, which are time-consuming and introduce additional technical variability. This study provides the first direct quantitative comparison of two well-established detergent-based methods for protein extraction and solubilization (In-solution and suspension trapping, S-Trap) with the recently developed Sample Preparation by Easy Extraction and Digestion (SPEED) method, which uses a strong acid for denaturation. Identification rates and quantitative performance of each method were compared with data-dependent acquisition (DDA) and label-free SWATH-MS (sequential window acquisition of all theoretical mass spectra) in both sheep kidney cortical tissue and plasma. In kidney tissue, SPEED outperformed In-solution and S-Trap by quantifying the highest number of unique proteins (SPEED 1,250; S-Trap 1,202; In-solution 1,197) and displayed the most efficient proteolysis (SPEED 93.8% of peptides fully tryptic in DDA; S-Trap 88.5%; In-solution 87.3%). In plasma, S-Trap produced the most unique protein quantifications (S-Trap 151; In-solution 148; SPEED 138), indicating it may be the optimal method for this biofluid. Protein quantifications were reproducible across biological replicates in both tissue (R2 from 0.85 to 0.90), and in plasma (SPEED R2=0.84; In-solution R2=0.76, S-Trap R2=0.65). Our data suggest SPEED as the optimal method for proteomic preparation in kidney tissue and S-Trap or SPEED as the optimal method for plasma, depending on whether a higher number of protein quantifications or greater reproducibility is desired.

2023-03-30 | PXD030796 | Pride

Comparison of SPEED, S-Trap, and In-Solution based sample preparation methods for tandem mass spectrometry

2023-03-30 | PXD030797 | Pride

Optimization of protein extraction methods for root-associated microbes in Arabidopsis

Project description:The goal of this study was to optimize protein extraction methods to study root-associated bacteria in Arabidopsis. For this we inoculated Arabidopsis seedlings grown in agar plates with a synthetic community (SynSom) composed of four different strains (Variovorax paradoxus, Arthrobacter sp, Agrobacterium sp. and Pseudomonas sp.. Twelve days after inoculation we extracted proteins from the roots using six different protein extraction methods each in triplicates. These methods were a combination of different extraction buffers (SDS or Triton-based) and mechanical disruption methods (bead-beating, N2 grinding, glass homogenizer and freeze-thaw cycles) We found that bead-beating the roots with lysing matrix E in SDT lysis buffer yielded the highest numbers of microbial protein identification and enhanced the detection of proteins derived from gram positive bacteria.

2022-09-08 | PXD026330 | Pride

Project description:Testing the efficiency of different extraction methods in BALF samples

| PRJNA636842 | ENA

Comparative evaluation of small molecular additives and their effects on peptide/protein identification

Project description:Detergents and salts are widely used in lysis buffer to enhance protein extraction from biological samples, facilitating in-depth proteome analysis, however, to efficiently remove these detergent and salt additives from the digested peptides is essential for generating high quality mass spectra in LC-MS/MS analysis. The sample preparation methods, such as Filter-Aided Sample Preparation (FASP), acetone precipitation followed by in-solution digestion (AP), strong cation exchange-based centrifugal proteomic reactor (CPR), are commonly used for proteomic sample process, but the additives removal efficiency and the application scope of these methods need to be further investigated. In this study, we demonstrated an integrative work flow for systematical small molecular additives quantification as well as peptide/protein identification to provide a comprehensive evaluation for additive cleanup effect of proteomic sample preparation pipelines. The multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)-based LC-MS approach was developed for six additives (i.e., Tris, Urea, CHAPS, SDS, SDC and Triton X-100) quantification. For the peptide and protein identification, although FASP outperformed the other two methods, these three methods were complementary to each other, in terms of peptide/ protein identification, as well as GRAVY index and amino acids distributions. By integrating analysis of small molecular quantification and protein identification datasets, we first bridged the quantitative influence of additive concentration to the peptide analysis performance. Our results provide a valuable dataset for appropriate sample preparation method selection and a guideline for evaluation of small molecular additives cleanup efficiency in the sample preparation procedures.

2017-08-11 | PXD005405 | Pride

Optimization of Protein Isolation and Label–free Quantitative Proteomic Analysis in Four Different Tissues of Korean Ginseng

Project description:Korean ginseng is one of the most valuable medicinal plants worldwide. Yet, our understanding of ginseng proteomics is largely limited due to difficulties in extraction and resolution of ginseng proteins because of the presence of natural contaminants such as polysaccharides, phenols, and glycosides. Here, we compared four different protein extraction methods, namely, TCA/acetone, TCA/acetone–MeOH/chloroform, Phenol–TCA/acetone, and Phenol–MeOH/chloroform methods. Consequently, the TCA/acetone–MeOH/chloroform method displayed the highest extraction efficiency, thus it was used for the comparative proteome profiling of leaf, root, shoot, and fruit by a label–free quantitative proteomics approach. This approach led to the identification of 2,604 significantly modulated proteins among four tissues. We could pinpoint differential pathways and proteins associated with ginsenoside biosynthesis including the methylerythritol 4–phosphate (MEP) pathway, the mevalonate (MVA) pathway, UDP–glycosyltransferases (UGTs), and oxidoreductases (CYP450s). The current study reports an efficient and reproducible method for the isolation of proteins from a wide range of ginseng tissues and provides a detailed organ–based proteome map and a more comprehensive view of enzymatic alterations in ginsenoside biosynthesis.

2021-09-07 | PXD022914 | Pride

ABLE-SWATH - A Case Study and Methodology for OpenSWATH Parameter Optimization Using the ProCan90 Data Set and 45,810 Computational Analysis Runs

Project description:Proteomic methods typically involve lengthy, multi-step sample preparation protocols (14-16 hrs), especially for the lysis and digestion of solid tissue samples or cells. We developed a streamlined proteomic sample preparation protocol termed Accelerated Barocycler Lysis and Extraction (ABLE), that substantially reduces the time and cost of tissue sample processing. ABLE is based on pressure cycling technology (PCT) for rapid tissue solubilisation and reliable, controlled proteolytic digestion. Here, the previously reported PCT protocol was optimised using 1-4 mg biopsy punches from rat kidney. The tissue denaturant urea was substituted with a combination of sodium deoxycholate (SDC) and N-propanol. ABLE produced comparable numbers of protein identifications in half the sample preparation time and with reduced cost, being ready for MS injection in 3 hrs (vs the conventional urea PCT method of 6 hrs). To validate the method, it was applied across a diverse range of rat tissues (kidney, lung, muscle, brain, testis), human HEK 293 cells and ovarian tumours by coupling PCT with SWATH-mass spectrometry (SWATH-MS). There were similar numbers of quantified proteins between ABLE-SWATH and PCT-SWATH methods, with greater than 70% overlap for all sample types, except muscle with 58% overlap. The ABLE tissue processing protocol offers a standardised, high-throughput, efficient and reproducible proteomic preparation method, accelerating sample throughput for any type of MS analysis. Coupled with SWATH-MS, ABLE has the potential to accelerate proteomics analysis towards a clinically relevant turn-around-time.

2019-01-21 | PXD010688 | Pride

Evaluation of Protein Extraction Methods to Improve Meta-Proteomics Analysis of Treated Wastewater Biofilms

Project description:Metaproteomics can be used to study functionally active biofilm-based bacterial populations in reclaimed water distribution systems, which in turn result in bacterial regrowth that impacts the water quality. However, existing protein extraction methods have differences in their protein recovery and have not been evaluated for their efficacies in reclaimed water biofilm samples. In this study, we first evaluated six different protein extraction methods with diverse chemical and physical properties on a mixture of bacterial cell culture. Based on a weighting scores-based evaluation, the extraction protocols in order of decreasing performance are listed as B-PER > RIPA > PreOmics > SDS > AllPrep > Urea. The highest four optimal methods on cell culture were further tested against treated wastewater non-chlorinated and chlorinated effluent biofilms. In terms of protein yield, our findings showed that RIPA performed the best; however, the highest number of proteins were extracted from SDS and PreOmics. Furthermore, SDS and PreOmics worked best to rupture gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial cell walls. Considering the five evaluation factors, PreOmics obtained highest weighted score, indicating its potential effectiveness in extracting proteins from biofilms. This study provides the first insight into evaluating protein extraction methods to facilitate metaproteomics for complex reclaimed water matrices.

2023-08-04 | PXD042292 | Pride

Evaluation of sample preparation methods for NMR-based metabolomics of cow milk

Project description:The quality of milk metabolome analyzed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is greatly influenced by the way samples are prepared. Although this analytical method is increasingly used to study milk metabolites, a thorough examination of available sample preparation protocols for milk has not been reported yet. We evaluated the performance of eight milk preparation methods namely (1) raw milk without any processing; (2) skimmed milk; (3) ultrafiltered milk; (4) skimming followed by ultrafiltration; (5) ultracentrifuged milk; (6) methanol; (7) dichloromethane; and (8) methanol/dichloromethane, in terms of spectra quality, repeatability, signal-to-noise ratio, extraction efficiency and yield criteria. A pooled sample of milk was used for all protocols. Skimming, ultracentrifugation and unprocessed milk protocols showed poor NMR spectra quality. Protocols involving multiple steps, namely methanol/dichloromethane extraction, and skimming followed by ultrafiltration produced inadequate results for signal-to-noise ratio parameter. Methanol and skimming associated to ultrafiltration provided good repeatability results compared to the other protocols. Chemical-based sample preparation protocols, particularly methanol, showed more efficient metabolite extraction compared to physical preparation methods. When considering all evaluation parameters, the methanol extraction protocol proved to be the best method. As a proof of utility, methanol protocol was then applied to milk samples from dairy cows fed a diet with or without a feed additive, showing a clear separation between the two groups of cows.

2019-06-13 | MTBLS623 | MetaboLights

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data