Quantitative Assessment of In-solution Digestion Efficiency Identifies Optimal Protocols for Unbiased Protein Analysis*

The majority of mass spectrometry-based protein quantification studies uses peptide-centric analytical methods and thus strongly relies on efficient and unbiased protein digestion protocols for sample preparation. We present a novel objective approach to assess protein digestion efficiency using a combination of qualitative and quantitative liquid chromatography-tandem MS methods and statistical data analysis. In contrast to previous studies we employed both standard qualitative as well as data-independent quantitative workflows to systematically assess trypsin digestion efficiency and bias using mitochondrial protein fractions. We evaluated nine trypsin-based digestion protocols, based on standard in-solution or on spin filter-aided digestion, including new optimized protocols. We investigated various reagents for protein solubilization and denaturation (dodecyl sulfate, deoxycholate, urea), several trypsin digestion conditions (buffer, RapiGest, deoxycholate, urea), and two methods for removal of detergents before analysis of peptides (acid precipitation or phase separation with ethyl acetate). Our data-independent quantitative liquid chromatography-tandem MS workflow quantified over 3700 distinct peptides with 96% completeness between all protocols and replicates, with an average 40% protein sequence coverage and an average of 11 peptides identified per protein. Systematic quantitative and statistical analysis of physicochemical parameters demonstrated that deoxycholate-assisted in-solution digestion combined with phase transfer allows for efficient, unbiased generation and recovery of peptides from all protein classes, including membrane proteins. This deoxycholate-assisted protocol was also optimal for spin filter-aided digestions as compared with existing methods.

[1]  Darryl B. Hardie,et al.  A quantitative study of the effects of chaotropic agents, surfactants, and solvents on the digestion efficiency of human plasma proteins by trypsin. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[2]  Henry H. N. Lam,et al.  Absolute quantification of microbial proteomes at different states by directed mass spectrometry , 2011, Molecular systems biology.

[3]  A. Shevchenko,et al.  Absolute quantification of proteins in solutions and in polyacrylamide gels by mass spectrometry. , 2004, Analytical chemistry.

[4]  F. Reisinger,et al.  Database on Demand – An online tool for the custom generation of FASTA‐formatted sequence databases , 2009, Proteomics.

[5]  Matthias Mann,et al.  High recovery FASP applied to the proteomic analysis of microdissected formalin fixed paraffin embedded cancer tissues retrieves known colon cancer markers. , 2011, Journal of proteome research.

[6]  C. Eyers Universal sample preparation method for proteome analysis , 2009 .

[7]  M. Gorenstein,et al.  Quantitative proteomic analysis by accurate mass retention time pairs. , 2005, Analytical chemistry.

[8]  M. Mann,et al.  Comprehensive mass-spectrometry-based proteome quantification of haploid versus diploid yeast , 2008, Nature.

[9]  R. Aebersold,et al.  Large-scale quantitative assessment of different in-solution protein digestion protocols reveals superior cleavage efficiency of tandem Lys-C/trypsin proteolysis over trypsin digestion. , 2012, Journal of proteome research.

[10]  Birgit Schilling,et al.  Repeatability and reproducibility in proteomic identifications by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[11]  Gerardo Beni,et al.  A Validity Measure for Fuzzy Clustering , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[12]  John R Yates,et al.  Optimization of mass spectrometry-compatible surfactants for shotgun proteomics. , 2007, Journal of proteome research.

[13]  D. Newmeyer,et al.  Mitochondria Releasing Power for Life and Unleashing the Machineries of Death , 2003, Cell.

[14]  Dan Golick,et al.  Database searching and accounting of multiplexed precursor and product ion spectra from the data independent analysis of simple and complex peptide mixtures , 2009, Proteomics.

[15]  Veit Schwämmle,et al.  BIOINFORMATICS ORIGINAL PAPER , 2022 .

[16]  Zhen Liu,et al.  Evaluation of the application of sodium deoxycholate to proteomic analysis of rat hippocampal plasma membrane. , 2006, Journal of proteome research.

[17]  Piliang Hao,et al.  Detection, Evaluation and Minimization of Nonenzymatic Deamidation in Proteomic Sample Preparation* , 2011, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[18]  Masaru Tomita,et al.  Unbiased Quantitation of Escherichia coli Membrane Proteome Using Phase Transfer Surfactants* , 2009, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[19]  Thierry Rabilloud,et al.  Power and limitations of electrophoretic separations in proteomics strategies. , 2009, Mass spectrometry reviews.

[20]  M. Gorenstein,et al.  Simultaneous Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of theEscherichia coli Proteome , 2006, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[21]  D. Speicher,et al.  Systematic analysis of peptide recoveries from in-gel digestions for protein identifications in proteome studies. , 2000, Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT.

[22]  Joseph J. Pereira,et al.  Proteomic analysis of the human colon carcinoma cell line (LIM 1215): Development of a membrane protein database , 2000, Electrophoresis.

[23]  Lennart Martens,et al.  DBToolkit: processing protein databases for peptide-centric proteomics , 2005, Bioinform..

[24]  L. Foster,et al.  Quantitative analysis of proteome coverage and recovery rates for upstream fractionation methods in proteomics. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[25]  M. Gorenstein,et al.  The detection, correlation, and comparison of peptide precursor and product ions from data independent LC‐MS with data dependant LC‐MS/MS , 2009, Proteomics.

[26]  J. Dixon,et al.  Mitochondrial modulation: reversible phosphorylation takes center stage? , 2006, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[27]  D. Billington,et al.  Membranes and bile formation. Composition of several mammalian biles and their membrane-damaging properties. , 1979, The Biochemical journal.

[28]  D. Figeys,et al.  18O labeling: a tool for proteomics. , 2001, Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM.

[29]  E. Nordhoff,et al.  Sample purification and preparation technique based on nano-scale reversed-phase columns for the sensitive analysis of complex peptide mixtures by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry. , 1999, Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS.

[30]  Hege Wergedahl,et al.  Fish oil and 3-thia fatty acid have additive effects on lipid metabolism but antagonistic effects on oxidative damage when fed to rats for 50 weeks. , 2012, The Journal of nutritional biochemistry.

[31]  Bradford W. Gibson,et al.  Characterization of the human heart mitochondrial proteome , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[32]  Daniel B. McClatchy,et al.  Comparisons of mass spectrometry compatible surfactants for global analysis of the mammalian brain proteome. , 2008, Analytical chemistry.

[33]  Bernhard Kuster,et al.  Profiling Core Proteomes of Human Cell Lines by One-dimensional PAGE and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry*S , 2003, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[34]  A. Shevchenko,et al.  Mass spectrometric sequencing of proteins silver-stained polyacrylamide gels. , 1996, Analytical chemistry.

[35]  Amy-Joan L Ham,et al.  Sample preparation and digestion for proteomic analyses using spin filters , 2005, Proteomics.

[36]  Daniel Schwartz,et al.  Biological sequence motif discovery using motif-x. , 2011, Current protocols in bioinformatics.

[37]  Ruedi Aebersold,et al.  Estimation of Absolute Protein Quantities of Unlabeled Samples by Selected Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry , 2011, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[38]  Masaru Tomita,et al.  Phase transfer surfactant-aided trypsin digestion for membrane proteome analysis. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.