Cargando…
Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species
Proteomics has been recently introduced in aquaculture research, and more methodological studies are needed to improve the quality of proteomics studies. Therefore, this work aims to compare three sample preparation methods for shotgun LC–MS/MS proteomics using tissues of two aquaculture species: li...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8628934/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/proteomes9040046 |
_version_ | 1784607100614213632 |
---|---|
author | Araújo, Mário Jorge Sousa, Maria Lígia Felpeto, Aldo Barreiro Turkina, Maria V. Fonseca, Elza Martins, José Carlos Vasconcelos, Vítor Campos, Alexandre |
author_facet | Araújo, Mário Jorge Sousa, Maria Lígia Felpeto, Aldo Barreiro Turkina, Maria V. Fonseca, Elza Martins, José Carlos Vasconcelos, Vítor Campos, Alexandre |
author_sort | Araújo, Mário Jorge |
collection | PubMed |
description | Proteomics has been recently introduced in aquaculture research, and more methodological studies are needed to improve the quality of proteomics studies. Therefore, this work aims to compare three sample preparation methods for shotgun LC–MS/MS proteomics using tissues of two aquaculture species: liver of turbot Scophthalmus maximus and hepatopancreas of Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. We compared the three most common sample preparation workflows for shotgun analysis: filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), suspension-trapping (S-Trap), and solid-phase-enhanced sample preparations (SP3). FASP showed the highest number of protein identifications for turbot samples, and S-Trap outperformed other methods for mussel samples. Subsequent functional analysis revealed a large number of Gene Ontology (GO) terms in turbot liver proteins (nearly 300 GO terms), while fewer GOs were found in mussel proteins (nearly 150 GO terms for FASP and S-Trap and 107 for SP3). This result may reflect the poor annotation of the genomic information in this specific group of animals. FASP was confirmed as the most consistent method for shotgun proteomic studies; however, the use of the other two methods might be important in specific experimental conditions (e.g., when samples have a very low amount of protein). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8628934 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86289342021-11-30 Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species Araújo, Mário Jorge Sousa, Maria Lígia Felpeto, Aldo Barreiro Turkina, Maria V. Fonseca, Elza Martins, José Carlos Vasconcelos, Vítor Campos, Alexandre Proteomes Article Proteomics has been recently introduced in aquaculture research, and more methodological studies are needed to improve the quality of proteomics studies. Therefore, this work aims to compare three sample preparation methods for shotgun LC–MS/MS proteomics using tissues of two aquaculture species: liver of turbot Scophthalmus maximus and hepatopancreas of Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. We compared the three most common sample preparation workflows for shotgun analysis: filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), suspension-trapping (S-Trap), and solid-phase-enhanced sample preparations (SP3). FASP showed the highest number of protein identifications for turbot samples, and S-Trap outperformed other methods for mussel samples. Subsequent functional analysis revealed a large number of Gene Ontology (GO) terms in turbot liver proteins (nearly 300 GO terms), while fewer GOs were found in mussel proteins (nearly 150 GO terms for FASP and S-Trap and 107 for SP3). This result may reflect the poor annotation of the genomic information in this specific group of animals. FASP was confirmed as the most consistent method for shotgun proteomic studies; however, the use of the other two methods might be important in specific experimental conditions (e.g., when samples have a very low amount of protein). MDPI 2021-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8628934/ /pubmed/34842808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/proteomes9040046 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Araújo, Mário Jorge Sousa, Maria Lígia Felpeto, Aldo Barreiro Turkina, Maria V. Fonseca, Elza Martins, José Carlos Vasconcelos, Vítor Campos, Alexandre Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species |
title | Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species |
title_full | Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species |
title_short | Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species |
title_sort | comparison of sample preparation methods for shotgun proteomic studies in aquaculture species |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8628934/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/proteomes9040046 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT araujomariojorge comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies AT sousamarialigia comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies AT felpetoaldobarreiro comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies AT turkinamariav comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies AT fonsecaelza comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies AT martinsjosecarlos comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies AT vasconcelosvitor comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies AT camposalexandre comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies |