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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Araújo, Mário Jorge, Sousa, Maria Lígia, Felpeto, Aldo Barreiro, Turkina, Maria V., Fonseca, Elza, Martins, José Carlos, Vasconcelos, Vítor, Campos, Alexandre
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