Literature DB >> 28606141

Metaproteomic analysis of human gut microbiota: where are we heading?

Pey Yee Lee1, Siok-Fong Chin2, Hui-Min Neoh1, Rahman Jamal1.   

Abstract

The human gut is home to complex microbial populations that change dynamically in response to various internal and external stimuli. The gut microbiota provides numerous functional benefits that are crucial for human health but in the setting of a disturbed equilibrium, the microbial community can cause deleterious outcomes such as diseases and cancers. Characterization of the functional activities of human gut microbiota is fundamental to understand their roles in human health and disease. Metaproteomics, which refers to the study of the entire protein collection of the microbial community in a given sample is an emerging area of research that provides informative details concerning functional aspects of the microbiota. In this mini review, we present a summary of the progress of metaproteomic analysis for studying the functional role of gut microbiota. This is followed by an overview of the experimental approaches focusing on fecal specimen for metaproteomics and is concluded by a discussion on the challenges and future directions of metaproteomic research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gut Microbiota; Human; Metaproteomics; Multi-omics; Technologies

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28606141      PMCID: PMC5469034          DOI: 10.1186/s12929-017-0342-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Sci        ISSN: 1021-7770            Impact factor:   8.410


Background

The human gastrointestinal (GI) tract is colonized by a highly diverse population of microbial community collectively known as the gut microbiota that play vital roles in maintaining human health [1]. Although relatively stable, alterations in the microbial consortium may occur due to factors such as aging, genetic mutations, inflammation and dietary change [2, 3]. Accumulating evidence indicates that imbalances in the microbial community or dysbiosis have potential adverse effects on human health, whereby such alterations are implicated in the development of numerous diseases, including metabolic disorders, inflammatory diseases and cancers [4]. Given the importance of gut microbiota in human health and disease development, it has been the subject of extensive investigations in recent years. The completion of a large-scale initiative known as the Human Microbiome Project in 2012 has marked an important milestone in the characterization of human microbiome in healthy individuals, which led to the establishment of a reference microbial genome database [5]. MetaHIT (Metagenomics of the Human Intestinal Tract) is another collaborative effort that aims to provide a reference catalog of gut microbiome in association with obesity and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [6]. Over the years, much effort has been devoted to determine microbiome composition in various diseased patients using metagenomic analysis to identify potential links between gut microbiota and diseases [7]. To date, the growing number of metagenomic studies have provided valuable insights into the structure and diversity of the gut microbial community and their genetic composition. However, it is important to note that there are several limitations in these studies. Firstly, these studies only uncovered gene sequences that were present but do not provide any clues regarding their actual gene or protein expression levels. Besides, metagenomic analysis does not discriminate between microbiota that are active, dormant or dead, as all microbial cells will be sequenced. Consequently, the precise functions of the gut microbiota are still largely unknown. Hence, other complementary approaches are needed to elucidate the functional capacity of human gut microbiota. Over the past decade, metaproteomics which is defined as the large-scale profiling of the whole protein complement expressed by a complex microbial ecosystem [8], has been applied to analyze human gut microbiota. In comparison to metagenomics, metaproteomics is capable to reveal functional traits relevant to the underlying physiological states, thereby providing detailed insights into the connection between microbial diversity, functions and the impact on host biology. In this mini review, we summarize the recent progress of metaproteomic study in the context of human gut microbiota. Further, we discuss experimental approaches for metaproteomics and conclude by providing an outlook on the challenges and future research direction for metaproteomics.

Metaproteomics of human gut microbiota

In a pioneering metaproteomic study of human gut microbiota, an initial input into the establishment and functional role of gut microbiota during early growth was obtained from the analysis of fecal microbiota from two infants [9]. Undoubtedly, the study is limited in the depth of analysis due to the absence of a suitable database. Despite the relatively simple fecal protein profile, only Bifidobacterial transaldolases protein was successfully identified by de novo sequencing back then. A few years along the road, with the likes of more powerful analytical tools and metagenome data availability, Young et al. recently provided a more detailed fecal metaproteome profile of a preterm infant, shedding light on the functional clues and host-microbiota interactions during early development [10]. As for the more complex human adult, an initial comprehensive fecal metaproteome analysis was performed on a healthy monozygotic twin pair [11] and subsequently followed by a high-throughput temporal analysis of intestinal metaproteomes between three female adults [12]. Both studies identified a common core proteome that was mainly mapped to metabolic pathways and detected a distinctive but relatively stable metaproteome for each individual. Notably, both studies also demonstrated discrepancies between protein levels predicted from the metagenomes and phylogenetic data with their actual abundances, hence further emphasize the essentiality of metaproteomics in understanding the protein expression dynamics. As noted from prior study, the composition of mucosa-associated microbiota varies from those residing inside the lumen [13]. This finding was further corroborated in an animal study where dissimilar metaproteome profiles of mucus, gut content and feces were reported [14]. Moreover, different intestinal sites have been found to affect host protein diversity more profoundly than microbial colonization states [15]. By applying a different sampling approach, Li et al. analyzed mucosal lavage samples from different intestinal locations to assess metaproteome of mucosa-associated microbiota [16]. Significant differences in the mucosal metaproteome were noted between the proximal and distal colon, implying distinct functionality within specific intestinal niches. This approach would be useful to investigate spatial distribution and activities at the mucosa-lumen interface, but might not be practically feasible as being invasive and costly. Apart from cataloguing gut microbial metaproteome in healthy individuals, comparative analyses to characterize differential protein profiles under altered physiological conditions have been performed. Antibiotics are known to cause disturbance in the microbiota composition and functions, which in turn will have potential consequences on health and disease [17]. A comprehensive multi-omics study revealed drastic changes in the protein profiles of the gut-associated microbiota following β-lactam therapy [18], which reflect functional adaptation of gut microbiota in response to the drug. Clearly, more studies are needed to understand how different antibiotics can shape the gut microbiota and the resulting effect on the host. There is increasing evidence linking gut microbiota to diseases such as Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), including Crohn's Disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), but the exact role of the microbiota is still unclear [19]. Erickson et al. studied alterations of gut microbiota in CD patients and found differentially expressed proteins that could be linked to the disease [20]. In another metaproteomic study that focused on mucosal-luminal interface in IBD, changes in the bacterial phylotypes were reported to be associated with host immune response and inflammation [21]. These findings provide an insight into host-microbiota interactions that may be correlated to the disease etiology. The disease-associated features were further corroborated by the discovery of distinct protein modules associated with IBD in the mucosal metaproteome of IBD patients, which were verified in an independent cohort [22]. Besides, altered intestinal microbiota has been implicated in the development of obesity but the mechanistic link remains obscure [23]. Striking enrichment of gut microbiota proteins involved in cell motility and vitamin B12 synthesis was reported in an obese adolescent subject, whereas the lean adolescent showed more active vitamin B6 synthesis [24]. Nevertheless, the results are rather preliminary as only one subject from each group was analyzed. In a recent fecal metaproteome study involving a larger group of individuals, Kolmeder et al. reported that the phylum Bacteroidetes was biologically more active in the obese group [25]. The authors have identified a subset of bacterial and human proteins that could be used to classify the subjects into their corresponding groups and unveiled functional shifts that could be correlated to obesity. Functional associations of microbial imbalances with liver cirrhosis have also been characterized using metaproteomics. Remarkably, unique metaproteome and functional pathways were reported for the patients, highlighting distinct functional characteristics of the gut microbiota that could be linked to liver cirrhosis [26]. The results provide new insights into the host-microbe relationships in liver cirrhosis that warrant further investigation. Metaproteomics also has been applied to study the correlation between dysbiosis with cystic fibrosis. Debyser et al. detected significant differences in the gut microbial diversity and protein profiles, along with a strong increase in host acute phase proteins in the patients, which reflect the ongoing inflammatory condition [27]. The study also reported a set of host and microbial proteins that might serve as candidate biomarkers for cystic fibrosis. In the trending research area of microbiota and probiotic, no conclusive data is observed regarding probiotic intervention on the host and microbial functionalities. Probiotic consumption did not cause significant alteration on the overall fecal protein profiles nor the functional pathways despite a reduction of fecal host proteins and concomitant increase in bacterial proteins [28]. In spite of some evidence for therapeutic effect shown by several probiotic studies in diseases, there are conflicting findings reported on the implications of probiotic supplementation in the healthy population [29]. Overall, metaproteomic study is gradually gaining momentum to unravel the functionality of the complex microbial consortium. From understanding the role of microbiota in healthy individuals, the field has progressed to explore the functional profiles of dysbiosis in various diseases, as summarized in Table 1. Metaproteomics has the potential to dissect microbial functionality, which could help to understand the underlying pathophysiology and pave the way for targeted approach to improve health and disease (Fig. 1). Yet, we are only just beginning to decipher such associations and in addition to the diseases mentioned above, it would be interesting to explore other disease manifestations such as neurological disorders [30] and colorectal cancer [31].
Table 1

Summary of metaproteomic studies of human gut microbiota

Sample typeSubjectSeparation methodMass spectrometerDatabaseNo. of proteins identifiedReference
Feces2 infants2-D PAGEMALDI-TOFPublic database>200 spots, 1 protein identifiedKlaassens et al., 2007
Feces1 infant2D-LCLTQ OrbitrapDatabases from metagenomic sequences, microbial species, human and common contaminants4,031 proteinsYoung et al., 2015
Feces1 monozygotic twin pair (adult)2D-LCLTQ OrbitrapDatabases from two human metagenomes, human database and common contaminants446 human proteins1,368 microbial proteinsVerberkmoes et al., 2009
Feces3 healthy adults1-DE and LCLTQ OrbitrapDatabases from intestinal microbes, two metagenomes, human protein and food database1,790 proteinsKolmeder et al., 2012
Mucosal lavage38 healthy adultsLCWCX magnetic beadsLTQ OrbitrapMALDI-TOFSwiss-Prot300 human proteinsLi et al., 2011
Feces1 adult with antibiotic treatment1-DE and LCLTQ OrbitrapMatched metagenome3,011 proteinsPérez-Cobas et al., 2013
Feces6 monozygotic twin pairs (1 set healthy, 3 sets concordant twins with CD, 2 sets discordant twins)2D-LCLTQ OrbitrapMatched metagenome and human microbial isolate reference genome database2,904 proteinsErickson et al., 2012
Mucosal lavageFirst cohort: 3 healthy, 6 UC patientsSecond cohort: 13 healthy, 14 CD, 15 UCWCX Protein Chip arraysSELDI-TOFUniprot589 proteinsPresley et al., 2012
Mucosal lavageDiscovery cohort: 51 (17 healthy, 13 UC, 21 CD)Validation cohort: 38 healthyWCX magnetic beadsLCMALDI-TOFLTQ OrbitrapSwiss-Prot599 protein/peptide peaksLi et al., 2016
Feces1 lean and 1 obese teenager1-DE and LCLTQ OrbitrapMatched and unmatched metagenomes613 proteinsFerrer et al., 2013
Feces9 normal, 4 overweight, 16 obese1-DE and LCOrbitrapIn-house metaproteome database893,007 MS/MS spectraKolmeder et al., 2015
Feces3 liver cirrhosis patients and their corresponding spouse1-DE and LCQuadrupole-OrbitrapUniProt5,020 proteinsWei et al., 2016
Feces15 children with cystic fibrosis and their unaffected siblings1-DE and LCIon trap-FTICRNCBI1,676 proteinsDebyser et al., 2016
Feces16 healthy adults (8 probiotics, 8 placebo)1-DE and LCLTQ OrbitrapIn-house metaproteome database4,966 peptidesKolmeder et al., 2016
Feces1 healthy adultLCLTQ OrbitrapUniProtKBSwiss-Prot3,911 proteins (not centrifuged)4,587 proteins (centrifuged)Tanca et al., 2015
Feces2 premature infants2D-LCLTQ OrbitrapIn-house metaproteome database807 and 342 proteins (without filtering)1264 and 1012 proteins (with double filtering)Xiong et al., 2015b
Feces2 healthy adults1-DE and LCLTQ OrbitrapMatched metagenomesSynthetic metagenomes (iterative search)2,331 and 1,870 peptides5,010 and 3,542 peptidesRooijers et al., 2011
Feces4 healthy volunteersLCLTQ OrbitrapMetagenome databases UniProt-based databasesAll bacterial sequences>10,000 peptidesTanca et al., 2016
FecesMucosal lavage8 mice8 pediatric volunteersLCQ ExactiveMicrobialgene catalog databasesTarget-decoy database30,749 mouse protein groups19,011 human protein groupsZhang et al., 2016b
Mucosal lavage5 teenagersLCLTQ OrbitrapIn-house Human IntestinalMicrobial Protein DatabaseTarget-decoy database4,014 protein groups quantifiedZhang et al., 2016a

1-DE one-dimensional electrophoresis, 2-D PAGE two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, 2-D LC two-dimensional liquid chromatography, FTICR Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance, LC liquid chromatography, LTQ linear trap quadrupole, MALDI-TOF matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight, NCBI National Center for Biotechnology Information, SELDI-TOF surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight, WCX weak cation exchange

Fig. 1

Applications of human gut metaproteomic study. Metaproteomic analysis has been employed to characterize functional roles of gut microbiota in healthy and disease conditions, which help to unravel the molecular mechanism underlying homeostasis and disease pathogenesis. Knowledge gained from metaproteomic study could be useful to devise strategies in disease prevention and management for improved human health

Summary of metaproteomic studies of human gut microbiota 1-DE one-dimensional electrophoresis, 2-D PAGE two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, 2-D LC two-dimensional liquid chromatography, FTICR Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance, LC liquid chromatography, LTQ linear trap quadrupole, MALDI-TOF matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight, NCBI National Center for Biotechnology Information, SELDI-TOF surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight, WCX weak cation exchange Applications of human gut metaproteomic study. Metaproteomic analysis has been employed to characterize functional roles of gut microbiota in healthy and disease conditions, which help to unravel the molecular mechanism underlying homeostasis and disease pathogenesis. Knowledge gained from metaproteomic study could be useful to devise strategies in disease prevention and management for improved human health

Experimental considerations for metaproteomics

Metaproteomics workflow typically includes sample collection, protein extraction, fractionation, mass spectrometry (MS) analysis and database searches [32]. For human gut microbiota study, fecal and mucosal lavage samples are commonly employed to characterize global proteome of the entire gut and the mucosa interface, respectively. This mini review will focus on fecal sample as it is more widely used for metaproteomics. Sample storage is a crucial yet sometimes overlooked step in metaproteomics. Several independent studies have revealed that different storage temperatures may introduce considerable alterations to the microbial profiles and highlighted that proper storage is critical to maintain sample stability [33-35]. Moreover, it was found that frozen intact fecal material was more stable than frozen extracted proteins, hence is recommended for long-term storage [36]. Apart from storage, sample processing is another key step in metaproteomics. Sample preparation protocol primarily depends on the research questions, which isolate either host or microbial proteins or both. Most previous studies have focused on proteins of microbial origin and employed centrifugation to remove other interfering substances. However, it was observed that despite greater microbial protein identifications, the centrifugation step caused considerable protein loss due to non-specific removal of microbial cells, which led to bias in the analysis [37]. Conversely, stool without pretreatment provides a better representation of the microbial proteins and allows concurrent analysis of human proteins. This highlights the importance of careful consideration in selecting a suitable approach for sample processing. Alternatively, a double filtering separation step has been shown useful to deplete human proteins for selective enrichment of microbial proteins, which was demonstrated to enhance proteome coverage by facilitating the identification of low-abundance proteins [38]. Next, efficient protein extraction from the complex microbial samples is critical to allow accurate representation of the intracellular protein content. In the metaproteomic analysis of environmental samples, different protein extraction methods have been shown to isolate different subset of proteins with only minimal overlap, which underlines the importance of selecting appropriate protocol to obtain optimal protein sample [39]. For gut microbiota study, several studies have indicated that mechanical disruption by bead beating was an efficient protein extraction method, particularly for lysing Gram-positive bacteria [40, 41]. Thus far, there is a major gap in the characterization of extracellular proteins that may serve as major mediators of host-microbiota interactions. The challenge to capture the secreted proteins from a complex ecosystem is huge, as consideration for intracellular protein removal either from the host or microbiota must be taken into account. Fecal samples may provide sufficient protein yield for this kind of secretome study but protein loss is inevitable given the necessity of an extensive clean-up procedure that follows due to the nature of the sample itself. Fecal proteins may also undergo some alteration along the intestine. Lichtman et al. described the enrichment of secreted gut luminal proteins from feces that can be applied to facilitate analysis of secreted host proteome [42]. Other than that, targeted analysis of specific subcellular fraction such as membrane proteins and post-translational modifications are also likely to provide additional functional insights. To date, MS remains as the analytical platform of choice for metaproteomics. Prior to MS analysis, extensive fractionation using multidimensional LC separations (GeLC-MS/MS or 2D-LC-MS/MS) is particularly useful to reduce sample complexity and improve protein identification. The final and fairly demanding stage for metaproteomics is data analysis. Several software tools such as Pipasic [43], MetaProteomeAnalyzer [44] and Unipept [45] have been developed to facilitate metaproteomic data analysis. One of the key elements for a successful metaproteomic study is the availability of a relevant database for mass spectra searching. Strategy using either matched or unmatched metagenomes has been successfully employed for metaproteomic protein identifications [24, 46]. Furthermore, iterative workflow using synthetic metagenome generated from known gut microbiota has been shown successful to enhance protein identifications [47]. The choice of database is a critical factor in data analysis. Parallel use of multiple databases to improve protein yields may be the way forward as demonstrated by Tanca et al. in which the use of different databases in gut microbial metaproteome data analysis has led to complementary identification of unique peptides [46]. More recently, a data analysis pipeline coupling publicly accessible gene catalog databases with iterative database searching known as MetaPro-IQ was introduced by Zhang et al. [48]. The pipeline enabled efficient identification and quantification of over 120,000 peptides corresponding to >30,000 protein groups from human and mouse gut microbial metaproteome. To date, it represents the most extensive metaproteome coverage and appears to be a promising approach for future metaproteomic study.

Challenges and future directions

Despite the great potential of metaproteomics to decipher the diverse roles of microbial members within the human host, there are many obstacles that need to be surmounted. First and foremost, inherent sample complexity associated with the highly diverse microbial community is among the major hurdles for metaproteomic study. The vast protein dynamic range often hinders the detection of low-abundant proteins from the minor species. This problem could be partly alleviated by applying different fractionation and enrichment strategies, such as capillary and microchip methods [49] to reduce sample complexity and increase protein detection, but at the expense of increased cost and analysis time. Beyond protein identification, quantitative analysis is important to determine key microbial players that contribute to metabolic functions [50]. However, given the enormous species and metabolic diversity, robust approaches for quantitative metaproteomic are still lacking. Protein-based stable isotope probing (protein-SIP) has been reported as a powerful technique in environmental studies to decipher metabolic activity of distinct microbial members [51]. Concerning gut microbiota, label-free quantification is the most common strategy adopted in the aforementioned metaproteomic studies, but has limited accuracy. The most recent take on quantitative metaproteomics of human gut microbiota is the application of metabolic labeling for improved peptide quantification [52]. This newly introduced method hold the potential to facilitate future metaproteomic study. There are also technical limitations implicated in metaproteomic analysis. Standardized procedures for metaproteomics are yet to be established, which might lead to suboptimal findings and hinder inter-laboratory comparison. Moreover, existing analytical platforms are also limited in terms of their sensitivity to analyze protein sample with such a wide dynamic range. With the emerging technology advancement in mass spectrometry such as the data-independent acquisition strategy (MSE and SWATH), reproducibility of protein quantification and the depth of proteome analysis were significantly improved [53]. Apart from that, identification of proteins from the complex microbial consortium, which may harbor up to hundreds or thousands of species, has also proven to be a difficult task. Lack of complete genome sequences for the highly heterogeneous microbial community, particularly the poorly characterized and uncultivable species poses a big challenge for researchers. Nonetheless, the availability of sequence data from the blooming metagenomic studies and new analysis softwares are expected to counteract these issues. Additionally, it is evident that sample complexity and inter-individual variation in gut microbiota are extensive [16]. It is also important to note that host and microbiota interactions involve delicate interplay between factors such as age, genetics, immunity and dietary habits, thus these could act as potential confounding variables. Clearly, studies involving a larger set of well-defined subjects are neccesary to capture a more accurate functional input of the gut microbial ecosystem. Rodent and gnotobiotic animals can be custom-designed to circumvent obstacles related to human study, thus represent valuable models for studying gut microbiota and have been employed in several metaproteomic studies [14, 42, 54]. Despite all of the limitations, metaproteomic research has already led to some remarkable discoveries on the functional features of gut microbiota. With the ongoing development to address those challenges, we envision that the field will further advance in the future. Furthermore, integration of metaproteomic with other omics approaches is expected to provide a more comprehensive and meaningful elucidation of the microbial ecosystem.

Conclusion

With the growing interest to understand the link between gut microbiota in health and diseases, metaproteomic analysis is instrumental to characterize the activity and functional pathways of the microbial community. Although challenging, further advances in sample preparation methods, development of more sophisticated analytical tools alongside with the availability of relevant software and databases are expected to facilitate the progress of metaproteomics in the coming years. By harnessing the power of the emerging technologies, it is anticipated that more details on the microbial functionality and their connection with human host will be uncovered in the future.
  54 in total

1.  The MetaProteomeAnalyzer: a powerful open-source software suite for metaproteomics data analysis and interpretation.

Authors:  Thilo Muth; Alexander Behne; Robert Heyer; Fabian Kohrs; Dirk Benndorf; Marcus Hoffmann; Miro Lehtevä; Udo Reichl; Lennart Martens; Erdmann Rapp
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 4.466

Review 2.  Gut microbiota composition and activity in relation to host metabolic phenotype and disease risk.

Authors:  Elaine Holmes; Jia V Li; Julian R Marchesi; Jeremy K Nicholson
Journal:  Cell Metab       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 27.287

3.  Which metaproteome? The impact of protein extraction bias on metaproteomic analyses.

Authors:  Dagmar Hajkova Leary; W Judson Hervey; Jeffrey R Deschamps; Anne W Kusterbeck; Gary J Vora
Journal:  Mol Cell Probes       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 2.365

4.  The effect of microbial colonization on the host proteome varies by gastrointestinal location.

Authors:  Joshua S Lichtman; Emily Alsentzer; Mia Jaffe; Daniel Sprockett; Evan Masutani; Elvis Ikwa; Gabriela K Fragiadakis; David Clifford; Bevan Emma Huang; Justin L Sonnenburg; Kerwyn Casey Huang; Joshua E Elias
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 10.302

5.  Faecal proteomics: A tool to investigate dysbiosis and inflammation in patients with cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Griet Debyser; Bart Mesuere; Lieven Clement; Jens Van de Weygaert; Pieter Van Hecke; Gwen Duytschaever; Maarten Aerts; Peter Dawyndt; Kris De Boeck; Peter Vandamme; Bart Devreese
Journal:  J Cyst Fibros       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Costello; Christian L Lauber; Micah Hamady; Noah Fierer; Jeffrey I Gordon; Rob Knight
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 7.  Gut microbiota and obesity.

Authors:  Philippe Gérard
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 9.261

Review 8.  Gut microbiota imbalance and colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Johan Gagnière; Jennifer Raisch; Julie Veziant; Nicolas Barnich; Richard Bonnet; Emmanuel Buc; Marie-Agnès Bringer; Denis Pezet; Mathilde Bonnet
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Gut microbiota disturbance during antibiotic therapy: a multi-omic approach.

Authors:  Ana Elena Pérez-Cobas; María José Gosalbes; Anette Friedrichs; Henrik Knecht; Alejandro Artacho; Kathleen Eismann; Wolfgang Otto; David Rojo; Rafael Bargiela; Martin von Bergen; Sven C Neulinger; Carolin Däumer; Femke-Anouska Heinsen; Amparo Latorre; Coral Barbas; Jana Seifert; Vitor Martins dos Santos; Stephan J Ott; Manuel Ferrer; Andrés Moya
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  MetaPro-IQ: a universal metaproteomic approach to studying human and mouse gut microbiota.

Authors:  Xu Zhang; Zhibin Ning; Janice Mayne; Jasmine I Moore; Jennifer Li; James Butcher; Shelley Ann Deeke; Rui Chen; Cheng-Kang Chiang; Ming Wen; David Mack; Alain Stintzi; Daniel Figeys
Journal:  Microbiome       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 14.650

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  New mass spectrometry technologies contributing towards comprehensive and high throughput omics analyses of single cells.

Authors:  Sneha P Couvillion; Ying Zhu; Gabe Nagy; Joshua N Adkins; Charles Ansong; Ryan S Renslow; Paul D Piehowski; Yehia M Ibrahim; Ryan T Kelly; Thomas O Metz
Journal:  Analyst       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 4.616

Review 2.  Metaproteomics of the human gut microbiota: Challenges and contributions to other OMICS.

Authors:  Ngom Issa Isaac; Decloquement Philippe; Armstrong Nicholas; Didier Raoult; Chabrière Eric
Journal:  Clin Mass Spectrom       Date:  2019-06-04

Review 3.  Metaproteomic analysis of human gut microbiome in digestive and metabolic diseases.

Authors:  Sheng Pan; Ru Chen
Journal:  Adv Clin Chem       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 6.303

4.  A carbohydrate-active enzyme (CAZy) profile links successful metabolic specialization of Prevotella to its abundance in gut microbiota.

Authors:  Juhani Aakko; Sami Pietilä; Raine Toivonen; Anne Rokka; Kati Mokkala; Kirsi Laitinen; Laura Elo; Arno Hänninen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Challenges in Clinical Metaproteomics Highlighted by the Analysis of Acute Leukemia Patients with Gut Colonization by Multidrug-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  Julia Rechenberger; Patroklos Samaras; Anna Jarzab; Juergen Behr; Martin Frejno; Ana Djukovic; Jaime Sanz; Eva M González-Barberá; Miguel Salavert; Jose Luis López-Hontangas; Karina B Xavier; Laurent Debrauwer; Jean-Marc Rolain; Miguel Sanz; Marc Garcia-Garcera; Mathias Wilhelm; Carles Ubeda; Bernhard Kuster
Journal:  Proteomes       Date:  2019-01-08

Review 6.  The Current Evidence on the Association Between the Urinary Microbiome and Urinary Incontinence in Women.

Authors:  Yashini Govender; Iwona Gabriel; Vatche Minassian; Raina Fichorova
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 5.293

7.  Gastric bypass surgery in a rat model alters the community structure and functional composition of the intestinal microbiota independently of weight loss.

Authors:  Sven-Bastiaan Haange; Nico Jehmlich; Ute Krügel; Constantin Hintschich; Dorothee Wehrmann; Mohammed Hankir; Florian Seyfried; Jean Froment; Thomas Hübschmann; Susann Müller; Dirk K Wissenbach; Kang Kang; Christian Buettner; Gianni Panagiotou; Matthias Noll; Ulrike Rolle-Kampczyk; Wiebke Fenske; Martin von Bergen
Journal:  Microbiome       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 14.650

8.  Evaluation of Sample Preservation and Storage Methods for Metaproteomics Analysis of Intestinal Microbiomes.

Authors:  Angie Mordant; Manuel Kleiner
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2021-12-15

9.  Who Is Metabolizing What? Discovering Novel Biomolecules in the Microbiome and the Organisms Who Make Them.

Authors:  Sneha P Couvillion; Neha Agrawal; Sean M Colby; Kristoffer R Brandvold; Thomas O Metz
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 5.293

Review 10.  Metaproteomics to Decipher CF Host-Microbiota Interactions: Overview, Challenges and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Pauline Hardouin; Raphael Chiron; Hélène Marchandin; Jean Armengaud; Lucia Grenga
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.096

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.