Cargando…

Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE

INTRODUCTION: Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotyping has been shown to have diagnostic value in the evaluation of cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. Although genetic testing is well established for this application, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maus, Anthony, Figdore, Dan, Milosevic, Dragana, Algeciras-Schimnich, Alicia, Bornhorst, Joshua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9664673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36380282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12014-022-09379-5
_version_ 1784831149379420160
author Maus, Anthony
Figdore, Dan
Milosevic, Dragana
Algeciras-Schimnich, Alicia
Bornhorst, Joshua
author_facet Maus, Anthony
Figdore, Dan
Milosevic, Dragana
Algeciras-Schimnich, Alicia
Bornhorst, Joshua
author_sort Maus, Anthony
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotyping has been shown to have diagnostic value in the evaluation of cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. Although genetic testing is well established for this application, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC–MS) has the potential to provide a high throughput, low-cost alternative for ApoE evaluation. METHODS: Serum samples were analyzed by peptide, intact protein, and genomic techniques. For peptide analysis, samples were digested with trypsin followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis (LC–MS/MS) using a high-throughput multichannel LC system coupled to a Sciex 7500 mass spectrometer. For intact protein analysis, ApoE was immuno-purified using a monoclonal antibody immobilized on magnetic beads followed by high-resolution LC–MS analysis using an Exploris 480. DNA was extracted and evaluated using Sanger sequencing as a reference method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The peptide measurement method produced one discrepant result when compared to genomic sequencing (out of 38 sequenced samples), whereas the intact protein analysis followed by deconvolution resulted in two discrepant results and when the intact protein data was processed with chromatographic integration there were three discrepant results. Therefore, the intact protein method proved slightly less accurate, required longer analysis time, and is substantially more costly, while providing only a 30 min improvement in sample preparation time. CONCLUSIONS: With current MS technology clinical laboratories appear to be better served to utilize trypsin digest sample preparation and LC–MS/MS as opposed to high-resolution LC–MS intact protein analysis techniques for evaluation of ApoE proteotype. Peptide analysis methods are capable of producing accurate results with high throughput and minimal cost. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12014-022-09379-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9664673
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96646732022-11-15 Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE Maus, Anthony Figdore, Dan Milosevic, Dragana Algeciras-Schimnich, Alicia Bornhorst, Joshua Clin Proteomics Research INTRODUCTION: Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotyping has been shown to have diagnostic value in the evaluation of cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease. Although genetic testing is well established for this application, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC–MS) has the potential to provide a high throughput, low-cost alternative for ApoE evaluation. METHODS: Serum samples were analyzed by peptide, intact protein, and genomic techniques. For peptide analysis, samples were digested with trypsin followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis (LC–MS/MS) using a high-throughput multichannel LC system coupled to a Sciex 7500 mass spectrometer. For intact protein analysis, ApoE was immuno-purified using a monoclonal antibody immobilized on magnetic beads followed by high-resolution LC–MS analysis using an Exploris 480. DNA was extracted and evaluated using Sanger sequencing as a reference method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The peptide measurement method produced one discrepant result when compared to genomic sequencing (out of 38 sequenced samples), whereas the intact protein analysis followed by deconvolution resulted in two discrepant results and when the intact protein data was processed with chromatographic integration there were three discrepant results. Therefore, the intact protein method proved slightly less accurate, required longer analysis time, and is substantially more costly, while providing only a 30 min improvement in sample preparation time. CONCLUSIONS: With current MS technology clinical laboratories appear to be better served to utilize trypsin digest sample preparation and LC–MS/MS as opposed to high-resolution LC–MS intact protein analysis techniques for evaluation of ApoE proteotype. Peptide analysis methods are capable of producing accurate results with high throughput and minimal cost. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12014-022-09379-5. BioMed Central 2022-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9664673/ /pubmed/36380282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12014-022-09379-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Maus, Anthony
Figdore, Dan
Milosevic, Dragana
Algeciras-Schimnich, Alicia
Bornhorst, Joshua
Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE
title Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE
title_full Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE
title_fullStr Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE
title_short Comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of ApoE
title_sort comparison of intact protein and digested peptide techniques for high throughput proteotyping of apoe
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9664673/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36380282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12014-022-09379-5
work_keys_str_mv AT mausanthony comparisonofintactproteinanddigestedpeptidetechniquesforhighthroughputproteotypingofapoe
AT figdoredan comparisonofintactproteinanddigestedpeptidetechniquesforhighthroughputproteotypingofapoe
AT milosevicdragana comparisonofintactproteinanddigestedpeptidetechniquesforhighthroughputproteotypingofapoe
AT algecirasschimnichalicia comparisonofintactproteinanddigestedpeptidetechniquesforhighthroughputproteotypingofapoe
AT bornhorstjoshua comparisonofintactproteinanddigestedpeptidetechniquesforhighthroughputproteotypingofapoe