Cargando…

Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil

Proteins play a crucial role in many soil processes, however, standardised methods to extract soluble protein from soil are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of different extractants to quantify the recovery of soluble proteins from three soil types (Cambisol, Ferralsol and H...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Greenfield, Lucy M., Hill, Paul W., Paterson, Eric, Baggs, Elizabeth M., Jones, Davey L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30046143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29559-4
_version_ 1783341975369416704
author Greenfield, Lucy M.
Hill, Paul W.
Paterson, Eric
Baggs, Elizabeth M.
Jones, Davey L.
author_facet Greenfield, Lucy M.
Hill, Paul W.
Paterson, Eric
Baggs, Elizabeth M.
Jones, Davey L.
author_sort Greenfield, Lucy M.
collection PubMed
description Proteins play a crucial role in many soil processes, however, standardised methods to extract soluble protein from soil are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of different extractants to quantify the recovery of soluble proteins from three soil types (Cambisol, Ferralsol and Histosol) with contrasting clay and organic matter contents. Known amounts of plant-derived (14)C-labelled soluble proteins were incubated with soil and then extracted with solutions of contrasting pH, concentration and polarity. Protein recovery proved highly solvent and soil dependent (Histosol > Cambisol > Ferralsol) and no single extractant was capable of complete protein recovery. In comparison to deionised water (10–60% of the total protein recovered), maximal recovery was observed with NaOH (0.1 M; 61–80%) and Na-pyrophosphate (0.05 M, pH 7.0; 45–75% recovery). We conclude that the dependence of protein recovery on both extractant and soil type prevents direct comparison of studies using different recovery methods, particularly if no extraction controls are used. We present recommendations for a standard protein extraction protocol.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6060134
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60601342018-07-31 Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil Greenfield, Lucy M. Hill, Paul W. Paterson, Eric Baggs, Elizabeth M. Jones, Davey L. Sci Rep Article Proteins play a crucial role in many soil processes, however, standardised methods to extract soluble protein from soil are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of different extractants to quantify the recovery of soluble proteins from three soil types (Cambisol, Ferralsol and Histosol) with contrasting clay and organic matter contents. Known amounts of plant-derived (14)C-labelled soluble proteins were incubated with soil and then extracted with solutions of contrasting pH, concentration and polarity. Protein recovery proved highly solvent and soil dependent (Histosol > Cambisol > Ferralsol) and no single extractant was capable of complete protein recovery. In comparison to deionised water (10–60% of the total protein recovered), maximal recovery was observed with NaOH (0.1 M; 61–80%) and Na-pyrophosphate (0.05 M, pH 7.0; 45–75% recovery). We conclude that the dependence of protein recovery on both extractant and soil type prevents direct comparison of studies using different recovery methods, particularly if no extraction controls are used. We present recommendations for a standard protein extraction protocol. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6060134/ /pubmed/30046143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29559-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Greenfield, Lucy M.
Hill, Paul W.
Paterson, Eric
Baggs, Elizabeth M.
Jones, Davey L.
Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil
title Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil
title_full Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil
title_fullStr Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil
title_full_unstemmed Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil
title_short Methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil
title_sort methodological bias associated with soluble protein recovery from soil
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30046143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29559-4
work_keys_str_mv AT greenfieldlucym methodologicalbiasassociatedwithsolubleproteinrecoveryfromsoil
AT hillpaulw methodologicalbiasassociatedwithsolubleproteinrecoveryfromsoil
AT patersoneric methodologicalbiasassociatedwithsolubleproteinrecoveryfromsoil
AT baggselizabethm methodologicalbiasassociatedwithsolubleproteinrecoveryfromsoil
AT jonesdaveyl methodologicalbiasassociatedwithsolubleproteinrecoveryfromsoil