Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species

Proteomics has been recently introduced in aquaculture research, and more methodological studies are needed to improve the quality of proteomics studies. Therefore, this work aims to compare three sample preparation methods for shotgun LC–MS/MS proteomics using tissues of two aquaculture species: li...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mário Jorge Araújo, Maria Lígia Sousa, Aldo Barreiro Felpeto, Maria V. Turkina, Elza Fonseca, José Carlos Martins, Vítor Vasconcelos, Alexandre Campos
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-11-01
Series:Proteomes
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7382/9/4/46
_version_ 1797501092839292928
author Mário Jorge Araújo
Maria Lígia Sousa
Aldo Barreiro Felpeto
Maria V. Turkina
Elza Fonseca
José Carlos Martins
Vítor Vasconcelos
Alexandre Campos
author_facet Mário Jorge Araújo
Maria Lígia Sousa
Aldo Barreiro Felpeto
Maria V. Turkina
Elza Fonseca
José Carlos Martins
Vítor Vasconcelos
Alexandre Campos
author_sort Mário Jorge Araújo
collection DOAJ
description Proteomics has been recently introduced in aquaculture research, and more methodological studies are needed to improve the quality of proteomics studies. Therefore, this work aims to compare three sample preparation methods for shotgun LC–MS/MS proteomics using tissues of two aquaculture species: liver of turbot <i>Scophthalmus maximus</i> and hepatopancreas of Mediterranean mussel <i>Mytilus galloprovincialis</i>. We compared the three most common sample preparation workflows for shotgun analysis: filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), suspension-trapping (S-Trap), and solid-phase-enhanced sample preparations (SP3). FASP showed the highest number of protein identifications for turbot samples, and S-Trap outperformed other methods for mussel samples. Subsequent functional analysis revealed a large number of Gene Ontology (GO) terms in turbot liver proteins (nearly 300 GO terms), while fewer GOs were found in mussel proteins (nearly 150 GO terms for FASP and S-Trap and 107 for SP3). This result may reflect the poor annotation of the genomic information in this specific group of animals. FASP was confirmed as the most consistent method for shotgun proteomic studies; however, the use of the other two methods might be important in specific experimental conditions (e.g., when samples have a very low amount of protein).
first_indexed 2024-03-10T03:13:22Z
format Article
id doaj.art-2e8c415fd307490888f0a57d6e0e82f0
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2227-7382
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-10T03:13:22Z
publishDate 2021-11-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Proteomes
spelling doaj.art-2e8c415fd307490888f0a57d6e0e82f02023-11-23T10:20:05ZengMDPI AGProteomes2227-73822021-11-01944610.3390/proteomes9040046Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture SpeciesMário Jorge Araújo0Maria Lígia Sousa1Aldo Barreiro Felpeto2Maria V. Turkina3Elza Fonseca4José Carlos Martins5Vítor Vasconcelos6Alexandre Campos7CIIMAR-UP-Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Av. General Norton de Matos, s/n, 4450-208 Porto, PortugalCIIMAR-UP-Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Av. General Norton de Matos, s/n, 4450-208 Porto, PortugalCIIMAR-UP-Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Av. General Norton de Matos, s/n, 4450-208 Porto, PortugalDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, SwedenCIIMAR-UP-Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Av. General Norton de Matos, s/n, 4450-208 Porto, PortugalCIIMAR-UP-Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Av. General Norton de Matos, s/n, 4450-208 Porto, PortugalCIIMAR-UP-Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Av. General Norton de Matos, s/n, 4450-208 Porto, PortugalCIIMAR-UP-Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research, University of Porto, Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Av. General Norton de Matos, s/n, 4450-208 Porto, PortugalProteomics has been recently introduced in aquaculture research, and more methodological studies are needed to improve the quality of proteomics studies. Therefore, this work aims to compare three sample preparation methods for shotgun LC–MS/MS proteomics using tissues of two aquaculture species: liver of turbot <i>Scophthalmus maximus</i> and hepatopancreas of Mediterranean mussel <i>Mytilus galloprovincialis</i>. We compared the three most common sample preparation workflows for shotgun analysis: filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), suspension-trapping (S-Trap), and solid-phase-enhanced sample preparations (SP3). FASP showed the highest number of protein identifications for turbot samples, and S-Trap outperformed other methods for mussel samples. Subsequent functional analysis revealed a large number of Gene Ontology (GO) terms in turbot liver proteins (nearly 300 GO terms), while fewer GOs were found in mussel proteins (nearly 150 GO terms for FASP and S-Trap and 107 for SP3). This result may reflect the poor annotation of the genomic information in this specific group of animals. FASP was confirmed as the most consistent method for shotgun proteomic studies; however, the use of the other two methods might be important in specific experimental conditions (e.g., when samples have a very low amount of protein).https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7382/9/4/46aquaculture<i>Mytilus galloprovincialis</i><i>Scophthalmus maximus</i>protein profilingfunctional analysisFASP
spellingShingle Mário Jorge Araújo
Maria Lígia Sousa
Aldo Barreiro Felpeto
Maria V. Turkina
Elza Fonseca
José Carlos Martins
Vítor Vasconcelos
Alexandre Campos
Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species
Proteomes
aquaculture
<i>Mytilus galloprovincialis</i>
<i>Scophthalmus maximus</i>
protein profiling
functional analysis
FASP
title Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species
title_full Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species
title_fullStr Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species
title_short Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species
title_sort comparison of sample preparation methods for shotgun proteomic studies in aquaculture species
topic aquaculture
<i>Mytilus galloprovincialis</i>
<i>Scophthalmus maximus</i>
protein profiling
functional analysis
FASP
url https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7382/9/4/46
work_keys_str_mv AT mariojorgearaujo comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies
AT marialigiasousa comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies
AT aldobarreirofelpeto comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies
AT mariavturkina comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies
AT elzafonseca comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies
AT josecarlosmartins comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies
AT vitorvasconcelos comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies
AT alexandrecampos comparisonofsamplepreparationmethodsforshotgunproteomicstudiesinaquaculturespecies