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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Keiblinger, Katharina M., Wilhartitz, Inés C., Schneider, Thomas, Roschitzki, Bernd, Schmid, Emanuel, Eberl, Leo, Riedel, Kathrin, Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Sophie
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