Literature DB >> 31390493

Proteome analysis of tissues by mass spectrometry.

Irena Dapic1, Lucia Baljeu-Neuman2, Naomi Uwugiaren1, Jesper Kers3,4,5, David R Goodlett1,6, Garry L Corthals4.   

Abstract

Tissues and biofluids are important sources of information used for the detection of diseases and decisions on patient therapies. There are several accepted methods for preservation of tissues, among which the most popular are fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin embedded methods. Depending on the preservation method and the amount of sample available, various specific protocols are available for tissue processing for subsequent proteomic analysis. Protocols are tailored to answer various biological questions, and as such vary in lysis and digestion conditions, as well as duration. The existence of diverse tissue-sample protocols has led to confusion in how to choose the best protocol for a given tissue and made it difficult to compare results across sample types. Here, we summarize procedures used for tissue processing for subsequent bottom-up proteomic analysis. Furthermore, we compare protocols for their variations in the composition of lysis buffers, digestion procedures, and purification steps. For example, reports have shown that lysis buffer composition plays an important role in the profile of extracted proteins: the most common are tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane, radioimmunoprecipitation assay, and ammonium bicarbonate buffers. Although, trypsin is the most commonly used enzyme for proteolysis, in some protocols it is supplemented with Lys-C and/or chymotrypsin, which will often lead to an increase in proteome coverage. Data show that the selection of the lysis procedure might need to be tissue-specific to produce distinct protocols for individual tissue types. Finally, selection of the procedures is also influenced by the amount of sample available, which range from biopsies or the size of a few dozen of mm2 obtained with laser capture microdissection to much larger amounts that weight several milligrams.
© 2019 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FF; FFPE; LC-MS; proteome; protocols; sample preparation; tissue

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31390493     DOI: 10.1002/mas.21598

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mass Spectrom Rev        ISSN: 0277-7037            Impact factor:   10.946


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of Fast and Sensitive Proteome Profiling of FF and FFPE Kidney Patient Tissues.

Authors:  Irena Dapic; Naomi Uwugiaren; Jesper Kers; Yassene Mohammed; David R Goodlett; Garry Corthals
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.411

Review 2.  Application of Proteomics in the Discovery of Radiosensitive Cancer Biomarkers.

Authors:  Hui Luo; Hong Ge
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  Hanging drop sample preparation improves sensitivity of spatial proteomics.

Authors:  Yumi Kwon; Paul D Piehowski; Rui Zhao; Ryan L Sontag; Ronald J Moore; Kristin E Burnum-Johnson; Richard D Smith; Wei-Jun Qian; Ryan T Kelly; Ying Zhu
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 7.517

4.  Kinetic Studies of the Effect of pH on the Trypsin-Catalyzed Hydrolysis of N-α-benzyloxycarbonyl-l-lysine-p-nitroanilide: Mechanism of Trypsin Catalysis.

Authors:  J Paul G Malthouse
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2020-03-03

5.  Proteomic Profiling of Archived Tissue of Primary Melanoma Identifies Proteins Associated with Metastasis.

Authors:  Andrew Shapanis; Chester Lai; Mathew Sommerlad; Erika Parkinson; Eugene Healy; Paul Skipp
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-10-31       Impact factor: 5.923

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.