| Literature DB >> 35736430 |
Manoj Yadav1, Prem Prashant Chaudhary1, Brandon N D'Souza1, Jacquelyn Spathies1, Ian A Myles1.
Abstract
MALDI imaging is a novel technique with which to study the pathophysiologies of diseases. Advancements in the field of metabolomics and lipidomics have been instrumental in mapping the signaling pathways involved in various diseases, such as cancer and neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson's). MALDI imaging is flexible and can handle many sample types. Researchers primarily use either formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) or fresh frozen tissue samples to answer their scientific questions. FFPE samples allow for easy long-term storage, but the requirement for extensive sample processing may limit the ability to provide a clear picture of metabolite distribution in biological tissue. Frozen samples require less handling, but present logistical challenges for collection and storage. A few studies, mostly focused on cancer cell lines, have directly compared the results of MALDI imaging using these two tissue fixation approaches. Herein, we directly compared FFPE and fresh frozen sample preparation for murine skin samples, and performed detailed pathway analysis to understand how differences in processing impact MALDI results from otherwise identical tissues. Our results indicate that FFPE and fresh frozen methods differ significantly in the putative identified metabolite content and distribution. The fixation methods shared only 2037 metabolites in positive mode and only 4079 metabolites in negative ion mode. However, both fixation approaches allowed for downstream fluorescent staining, which may save time and resources for samples that are clinically precious. This work represents a direct comparison of the impacts of the two main tissue processing methods on subsequent MALDI-MSI. While our results are similar to previous work in cancer tissue, they provide novel insights for those using MALDI-MSI in skin.Entities:
Keywords: FFPE; IHC; MALDI-MSI; metabolites
Year: 2022 PMID: 35736430 PMCID: PMC9227925 DOI: 10.3390/metabo12060497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
Figure 1MALDI positive mode imaging of skin tissue: (a) Nonmetric dimensional plot of the metabolites present in fresh frozen and FFPE samples. An ANOSIM test showed that there are significant differences in the metabolic profiles of the groups tested. (Stress: 0.03219174, ANOSIM statistic R: 1, significance: 1 × 10−4). (b) Heatmap plot of the top 50 most significantly different metabolites between the two groups. (c) Venn diagram showing the unique and shared metabolites from the two groups. (d–f) Metabolic pathway analysis plot created using MetaboAnalyst 5.0, USA. Plots depict several metabolic pathways that differ between the fresh frozen and FFPE samples tested. (d) Differential metabolites calculated from FFPE vs. fresh frozen samples. (e) Common metabolites from the FFPE and fresh frozen groups were sorted based on p-values (high to low). (f) Differential metabolites were calculated from fresh frozen vs. FFPE. (Box color corresponds to the same color from the Venn diagram). The y-axis is the log scale of the p-value; pathways that were most significantly different are characterized by high –log10(p) values. (g) The top 50 common metabolites were sorted based on p-value and are represented as a heatmap with their detected intensities. (h–j) Specific metabolite distribution images are presented along with an intensity box plot. (h) An image of type IV B antigen distribution in both tissues and an intensity box plot of the same metabolite’s distribution. (i) An image of NPA028417 distribution in both tissues and an intensity box plot of the same metabolite’s distribution. (j) An image of SM 20:3: 20/40 distribution in both tissues and an intensity box plot of the same metabolite’s distribution.
Figure 2MALDI negative mode imaging of skin tissue: (a) Nonmetric dimensional plot of the metabolites present in fresh frozen and FFPE samples. Significant p-values from ANOSIM test showed there are differences in the metabolic profiles of the group tested (Stress: 0.03219174, ANOSIM statistic R: 1, significance: 1 × 10−4). (b) The heatmap plot of the top 50 most significantly different metabolites between the two groups. (c) Venn diagram showing the unique and shared putative metabolites between the two comparisons. (d–f) Metabolic pathway analysis plot created using MetaboAnalyst 5.0. Plots depict several metabolic pathway alterations when unique and shared metabolites from the fresh frozen and FFPE samples were tested. (d) Differential metabolites calculated from FFPE vs. fresh frozen. (e) Common metabolites from the Venn diagram were sorted based on p-value (high to low). (f) Differential metabolites calculated from fresh frozen vs. FFPE. (Pathway graph color box corresponds to the same color in Venn diagram). The y-axis is the –log10 of the p-value; pathways that were most significantly changed are characterized by high –log10(p) values (top middle or right region). (g) The top 50 common metabolites were sorted based on p-value and represented as a heatmap. (h–j) Specific metabolite distribution images are presented along with an intensity box plot. (h) HBMP 16:2_20:0_18:3 distribution in both tissues and an intensity box plot of the same metabolite’s distribution. (i) NPA001813 distribution in both tissues and an intensity box plot of the same metabolite’s distribution. (j) PE 44:2_36:8 distribution in both tissues and an intensity box plot of the same metabolite’s distribution.
Figure 3Segmentation and Immunohistochemistry of skin tissue post-MALDI Imaging: (a,b) Representative images show the differential presence of metabolites from the skin tissue in FFPE and fresh frozen conditions in positive and negative mode MALDI imaging, respectively. (White dotted box represents the tissue area imaged in ©). (c) Representative immunohistochemistry images show the FFPE and fresh frozen tissue sections stained with Phalloidin-488 (green staining actin) and DAPI (blue staining nucleus) stains. The white dotted box shows the zoomed image.
Figure 4Schematic representation of sample processing.