Cargando…
Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols
Metaproteomics and its potential applications are very promising to study microbial activity in environmental samples and to obtain a deeper understanding of microbial interactions. However, due to the complexity of soil samples the exhaustive extraction of proteins is a major challenge. We compared...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Pergamon Press
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.05.014 |
_version_ | 1782240119363731456 |
---|---|
author | Keiblinger, Katharina M. Wilhartitz, Inés C. Schneider, Thomas Roschitzki, Bernd Schmid, Emanuel Eberl, Leo Riedel, Kathrin Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Sophie |
author_facet | Keiblinger, Katharina M. Wilhartitz, Inés C. Schneider, Thomas Roschitzki, Bernd Schmid, Emanuel Eberl, Leo Riedel, Kathrin Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Sophie |
author_sort | Keiblinger, Katharina M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Metaproteomics and its potential applications are very promising to study microbial activity in environmental samples and to obtain a deeper understanding of microbial interactions. However, due to the complexity of soil samples the exhaustive extraction of proteins is a major challenge. We compared soil protein extraction protocols in terms of their protein extraction efficiency for two different soil types. Four different protein extraction procedures were applied based on (a) SDS extraction without phenol, (b) NaOH and subsequent phenol extraction, (c) SDS–phenol extraction and (d) SDS–phenol extraction with prior washing steps. To assess the suitability of these methods for the functional analysis of the soil metaproteome, they were applied to a potting soil high in organic matter and a forest soil. Proteins were analyzed by two-dimensional liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (2D-LC–MS/MS) and the number of unique spectra as well as the number of assigned proteins for each of the respective protocols was compared. In both soil types, extraction with SDS–phenol (c) resulted in “high” numbers of proteins. Moreover, a spiking experiment was conducted to evaluate protein recovery. To this end sterilized forest soil was amended with proteins from pure cultures of Pectobacterium carotovorum and Aspergillus nidulans. The protein recovery in the spiking experiment was almost 50%. Our study demonstrates that a critical evaluation of the extraction protocol is crucial for the quality of the metaproteomics data, especially in highly complex samples like natural soils. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3413887 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Pergamon Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34138872012-11-01 Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols Keiblinger, Katharina M. Wilhartitz, Inés C. Schneider, Thomas Roschitzki, Bernd Schmid, Emanuel Eberl, Leo Riedel, Kathrin Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Sophie Soil Biol Biochem Article Metaproteomics and its potential applications are very promising to study microbial activity in environmental samples and to obtain a deeper understanding of microbial interactions. However, due to the complexity of soil samples the exhaustive extraction of proteins is a major challenge. We compared soil protein extraction protocols in terms of their protein extraction efficiency for two different soil types. Four different protein extraction procedures were applied based on (a) SDS extraction without phenol, (b) NaOH and subsequent phenol extraction, (c) SDS–phenol extraction and (d) SDS–phenol extraction with prior washing steps. To assess the suitability of these methods for the functional analysis of the soil metaproteome, they were applied to a potting soil high in organic matter and a forest soil. Proteins were analyzed by two-dimensional liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (2D-LC–MS/MS) and the number of unique spectra as well as the number of assigned proteins for each of the respective protocols was compared. In both soil types, extraction with SDS–phenol (c) resulted in “high” numbers of proteins. Moreover, a spiking experiment was conducted to evaluate protein recovery. To this end sterilized forest soil was amended with proteins from pure cultures of Pectobacterium carotovorum and Aspergillus nidulans. The protein recovery in the spiking experiment was almost 50%. Our study demonstrates that a critical evaluation of the extraction protocol is crucial for the quality of the metaproteomics data, especially in highly complex samples like natural soils. Pergamon Press 2012-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3413887/ /pubmed/23125465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.05.014 Text en © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Open Access under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) license |
spellingShingle | Article Keiblinger, Katharina M. Wilhartitz, Inés C. Schneider, Thomas Roschitzki, Bernd Schmid, Emanuel Eberl, Leo Riedel, Kathrin Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Sophie Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols |
title | Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols |
title_full | Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols |
title_fullStr | Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols |
title_full_unstemmed | Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols |
title_short | Soil metaproteomics – Comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols |
title_sort | soil metaproteomics – comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.05.014 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT keiblingerkatharinam soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols AT wilhartitzinesc soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols AT schneiderthomas soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols AT roschitzkibernd soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols AT schmidemanuel soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols AT eberlleo soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols AT riedelkathrin soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols AT zechmeisterboltensternsophie soilmetaproteomicscomparativeevaluationofproteinextractionprotocols |