Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24076290
Title: | Comparison of SPEED, S-Trap, and In-Solution-Based Sample Preparation Methods for Mass Spectrometry in Kidney Tissue and Plasma | Authors: | Templeton, EM Pilbrow, AP Kleffmann, T Pickering, JW Rademaker, MT Scott, NJA Ellmers, LJ Charles, CJ Endre, ZH Richards, AM Cameron, VA Lassé, M |
Keywords: | SPEED SWATH-MS kidney mass spectrometry plasma proteomics quantitative proteomics renal sample preparation techniques suspension trap Animals Sheep Detergents Tandem Mass Spectrometry Proteomics Reproducibility of Results Proteins |
Issue Date: | 1-Apr-2023 | Publisher: | MDPI AG | Citation: | Templeton, EM, Pilbrow, AP, Kleffmann, T, Pickering, JW, Rademaker, MT, Scott, NJA, Ellmers, LJ, Charles, CJ, Endre, ZH, Richards, AM, Cameron, VA, Lassé, M (2023-04-01). Comparison of SPEED, S-Trap, and In-Solution-Based Sample Preparation Methods for Mass Spectrometry in Kidney Tissue and Plasma. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24 (7) : 6290-. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24076290 | Abstract: | Mass spectrometry is a powerful technique for investigating renal pathologies and identifying biomarkers, and efficient protein extraction from kidney tissue is essential for bottom-up proteomic analyses. Detergent-based strategies aid cell lysis and protein solubilization but are poorly compatible with downstream protein digestion and liquid chromatography-coupled mass spectrometry, requiring additional purification and buffer-exchange steps. This study compares two well-established detergent-based methods for protein extraction (in-solution sodium deoxycholate (SDC); suspension trapping (S-Trap)) with the recently developed sample preparation by easy extraction and digestion (SPEED) method, which uses strong acid for denaturation. We compared the quantitative performance of each method using label-free mass spectrometry in both sheep kidney cortical tissue and plasma. In kidney tissue, SPEED quantified the most unique proteins (SPEED 1250; S-Trap 1202; SDC 1197). In plasma, S-Trap produced the most unique protein quantifications (S-Trap 150; SDC 148; SPEED 137). Protein quantifications were reproducible across biological replicates in both tissue (R2 = 0.85–0.90) and plasma (SPEED R2 = 0.84; SDC R2 = 0.76, S-Trap R2 = 0.65). Our data suggest SPEED as the optimal method for proteomic preparation in kidney tissue and S-Trap or SPEED as the optimal method for plasma, depending on whether a higher number of protein quantifications or greater reproducibility is desired. | Source Title: | International Journal of Molecular Sciences | URI: | https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/241778 | ISSN: | 1661-6596 1422-0067 |
DOI: | 10.3390/ijms24076290 |
Appears in Collections: | Staff Publications Elements |
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | Access Settings | Version | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comparison of SPEED, S-Trap, and In-Solution-Based Sample Preparation Methods for Mass Spectrometry in Kidney Tissue and Pla.pdf | 10.98 MB | Adobe PDF | OPEN | None | View/Download |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.