Cargando…
Critical comparison of sample preparation strategies for shotgun proteomic analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples: insights from liver tissue
BACKGROUND: The growing field of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue proteomics holds promise for improving translational research. Direct tissue trypsinization (DT) and protein extraction followed by in solution digestion (ISD) or filter-aided sample preparation (FASP) are the most commo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115481/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25097466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1559-0275-11-28 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The growing field of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue proteomics holds promise for improving translational research. Direct tissue trypsinization (DT) and protein extraction followed by in solution digestion (ISD) or filter-aided sample preparation (FASP) are the most common workflows for shotgun analysis of FFPE samples, but a critical comparison of the different methods is currently lacking. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DT, FASP and ISD workflows were compared by subjecting to the same label-free quantitative approach three independent technical replicates of each method applied to FFPE liver tissue. Data were evaluated in terms of method reproducibility and protein/peptide distribution according to localization, MW, pI and hydrophobicity. RESULTS: DT showed lower reproducibility, good preservation of high-MW proteins, a general bias towards hydrophilic and acidic proteins, much lower keratin contamination, as well as higher abundance of non-tryptic peptides. Conversely, FASP and ISD proteomes were depleted in high-MW proteins and enriched in hydrophobic and membrane proteins; FASP provided higher identification yields, while ISD exhibited higher reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that diverse sample preparation strategies provide significantly different proteomic information, and present typical biases that should be taken into account when dealing with FFPE samples. When a sufficient amount of tissue is available, the complementary use of different methods is suggested to increase proteome coverage and depth. |
---|