| Literature DB >> 32390769 |
Celia Sze-Nga Kwok1, Kaze King-Yip Lai1, Sai-Wo Lam1, Kin-Ka Chan1, Steven Jing-Liang Xu1, Fred Wang-Fat Lee1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Marine medaka is among the most popular models of fish species for ecotoxicology and environmental research and proteomic studies are useful tools for understanding the molecular responses of medaka upon exposure to different environmental stressors. The preparation of high-quality protein samples is the key to producing high-quality two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) results for proteomic analysis. In recent years, Trizol-based protein extraction has been gaining popularity because of its promising performance in producing high-quality 2-DE as well as the convenience of the method.Entities:
Keywords: Medaka; Protein extraction; Proteomics; Trizol; Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32390769 PMCID: PMC7196234 DOI: 10.1186/s12953-020-00161-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proteome Sci ISSN: 1477-5956 Impact factor: 2.480
Previous reports of using Trizol protein extraction method for 2-DE production
| Published Year | Sample Type | References |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 | Halophilic archaea | [ |
| 2007 | Human neck squamous cell carcinoma cells Rat spinal cord tissue | [ [ |
| 2008 | Dinoflagellates Human heart tissue | [ [ |
| 2009 | Human breast cancer cells Mites | [ [ |
| 2011 | Dinoflagellates Human kidney carcinoma cells Leguminous plant | [ [ [ |
| 2012 | Caudal gland tissue Dinoflagellates Human neuroblastoma cells | [ [ [ |
| 2013 | Dinoflagellates Human non-cancerous liver tissue Mediterranean mussel; Olive flounder; Polychaetes | [ [ [ [ |
| 2015 | Dinoflagellates Heart biopsies | [ [ [ |
| 2018 | Dried seafood and dried tonic food Reef corals | [ [ |
| 2019 | Adipose-derived stem cells | [ |
Fig. 1A flow chart of experimental design. Five extraction methods were selected in this study
Comparison of solvents and kits required, total time consumed and ease of handling in five protein extraction methods
| Protein Extraction Method | Solvents and Kits Required | Total Time Consumed | Ease of Handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trizol method | Trizol reagent, chloroform, ethanol, isopropanol and lysis buffer | 3 h | Easy to follow the procedures on manual |
| Lysis buffer method | Lysis buffer | 0.5 h | With only a few steps Solvent Preparation is needed prior to extraction |
| TCA/acetone precipitation | 10% TCA in acetone, cold acetone, DTT and lysis buffer | Overnighta (12–20 h) | Solvent Preparation is needed prior to extraction |
| Aliquot Trizol method | Trizol reagent, chloroform, ethanol, isopropanol and lysis buffer | 4 h | Handling multiple samples simultaneously |
| Trizol method with a commercial clean-up kit | Trizol reagent, chloroform, ethanol, isopropanol, 2-D clean-up kit, Mili-Q water and lysis buffer | 6 h | Many steps in the clean-up procedure |
aTCA/acetone precipitation used in this study was an overnight method. A normal TCA/acetone precipitation protocol could be completed within a few hours
Fig. 22-DE profiles (pH 4–7) of protein samples from medaka. Proteins were extracted using a Trizol method, b lysis buffer method, c TCA/acetone precipitation, d aliquot Trizol method and e. Trizol method with a commercial clean-up kit. A total of 100 μL of each protein extract was loaded onto the strips and silver staining was used. Magnified images of selected areas on the 2-DE profile of each method are shown at the right bottom corner
Fig. 3Percentage difference in number of protein spots on the 2-DE profiles of proteins in medaka between Trizol method and other extraction methods. Each protein sample was extracted from five medaka fish, with 100 μL of protein loaded onto the strip. * indicates a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) compared with Trizol method (Tukey’s HSD method)
Comparison of 2-DE profiles of proteins in medaka extracted using five methods in terms of No. of protein spots, quality of background and resolution of proteins. Each protein sample was extracted from five medaka fish, with 100 μL of protein loaded on the strip. The value inside the bracket is the standard deviation of three independent trials in each protein extraction method. “+++” = good, “++” = average, “+” = fair and “-” = poor
| Protein Extraction Method | No. of Protein Spots | Quality of Background | Resolution of Proteins |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trizol method | 1447 (32.47) | + | + |
| Lysis buffer method | 1629 (112.59) | – | + |
| TCA/acetone precipitation | 1154 (96.91)* | – | – |
| Aliquot Trizol method | 1550 (65.91) | ++ | ++ |
| Trizol method with a commercial clean-up kit | 1628 (40.28) | +++ | +++ |
*Statistically significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) compared with Trizol method (Tukey’s HSD method)
Fig. 4Yield of extracted proteins from five extraction methods. The mean values are displayed above the bars. Each sample was standardized as a 1 g medaka sample. * indicates a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) compared with Trizol method (Tukey’s HSD method)
Fig. 52-DE profiles of (a) untreated medaka and (b) medaka exposed to K. mikimotoi. Proteins were extracted using Trizol method with a clean-up kit. The loading amount of proteins was 100 μg and silver staining was used. Differentially expressed protein spots were circled
Identities of differentially expressed proteins extracted from medaka after exposure to K. mikimotoi using Trizol method with a commercial clean-up kit. MASCOT search engine was used for PMF analysis. Protein scores higher than 58 were significant (p ≤ 0.05)
| Spot | pI | MW (kDa) | Protein Name | Accession Number | Mascot Score | Sequence Coverage (%) | Fold Changea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.64 | 20 | Myosin light chain 1, skeletal muscle isoform | gi|432,932,023 | 71 | 50 | −2.0 |
| 2 | 4.66 | 27 | 14–3-3 protein beta/alpha-1-like | gi|432,959,056 | 73 | 39 | −3.0 |
| 3 | 5.23 | 42 | Muscle actin OlMA1 | gi|1,552,222 | 85 | 39 | −3.7 |
| 4 | 5.23 | 42 | Muscle actin OlMA1 | gi|1,552,222 | 110 | 40 | −8.6 |
| 5 | 5.23 | 42 | Muscle actin OlMA1 | gi|1,552,222 | 115 | 37 | − 9.8 |
| 6 | 5.23 | 42 | Muscle actin OlMA1 | gi|1,552,222 | 79 | 33 | −10.4 |
| 7 | 5.15 | 58 | Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 8-like isoform X1 | gi|432,864,501 | 109 | 33 | −3.5 |
| 8 | 5.66 | 30 | Apolipoprotein A-I | gi|327,358,583 | 117 | 52 | −9.2 |
| 9 | 5.66 | 30 | Apolipoprotein A-I | gi|327,358,583 | 85 | 42 | 2.2 |
| 10 | 5.97 | 23 | Beta-crystallin A1–1 | gi|432,890,713 | 83 | 47 | −2.1 |
| 11 | 6.17 | 47 | Beta-enolase | gi|432,957,740 | 129 | 52 | −2.8 |
| 12 | 6.17 | 47 | Beta-enolase | gi|432,957,740 | 160 | 58 | −3.5 |
| 13 | 6.17 | 47 | Beta-enolase | gi|432,957,740 | 119 | 46 | −3.2 |
| 14 | 6.32 | 42 | Creatine kinase M-type | gi|765,137,894 | 92 | 31 | −5.2 |
| 15 | 6.32 | 42 | Creatine kinase M-type | gi|765,137,894 | 97 | 31 | −9.6 |
| 16 | 6.32 | 42 | Creatine kinase M-type | gi|765,137,894 | 99 | 29 | −6.3 |
| 17 | 6.32 | 42 | Creatine kinase M-type | gi|765,137,894 | 88 | 35 | −3.1 |
| 18 | 6.09 | 23 | Beta-crystallin A2 isoform X2 | gi|432,964,694 | 99 | 55 | −3.5 |
| 19 | 6.59 | 27 | Beta-crystallin B1 | gi|432,884,641 | 92 | 52 | −3.8 |
| 20 | 6.90 | 26 | Triosephosphate isomerase | gi|432,908,784 | 79 | 39 | −2.1 |
aA negative value denotes down-regulation after treatment