Back to Search
Start Over
Comparison of Hydrophobic, Lipophilic and Immunodepletion Pre- Fractionation Methods for Label-Free LC-MS/MS Identification of Biomarkers in Human Cerebrospinal Fluid
- Source :
- Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics, Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics, OMICS international 2015, s5, ⟨10.4172/JPB.S5-003⟩, Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics, 2015, s5, ⟨10.4172/JPB.S5-003⟩
- Publication Year :
- 2015
- Publisher :
- HAL CCSD, 2015.
-
Abstract
- International audience; Background: Proteomics analysis of human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a major tool for identifying novel biomarkers for neurological diseases. However, the complexity and wide dynamic range of CSF represent a major challenge for detecting specific low-abundance biomarkers. One way to overcome this problem is to rely on different pre-fractionation techniques. However, the most relevant technique remains to be determined. Methods: This study compared three different well-known pre-fractionation methods: immuno-depletion of major proteins (Seppro® IgY14), hydrophobic solid phase extraction (Oasis® HLB), and lipophilic sorbent concentration (Liposorb™). Unfractionated and pre-fractionated CSF was digested with trypsin and analyzed by RP-LC-MS/MS with an OrbitrapTM mass spectrometer. We documented the number of peptides detected and sets of proteins identified. Experiments were repeated to minimize pre-analytical and analytical variability.Results: Compared to unfractionated CSF, the OASIS® HLB fractionated CSF method showed a significant 28% increase in the total number of proteins identified, while the Liposorb™ capture resulted in a significant 46% decrease. Interestingly, results based on the number of peptides detected were different. We also evaluated the capacity of these pre-fractionation methods to detect different proteins in terms of their molecular weight, isoelectrophoretic point (IEP) or nature. Each of these pre-fractionation methods identified a specific subset of proteins, when compared to unfractionated CSF, and/or other methods. This was particularly obvious for the lipophilic sorbent, which allowed the detection of many lipoproteins.Conclusion: Direct analysis of digested CSF led to the identification of several proteins despite matrix complexity. As expected, single pre-fractionation methods that can be included in simple and cost-effective workflows, yielded significant differences in terms of number, or range of proteins identified. This suggests that a single pre-fractionation method cannot cover the full range of protein species present in a complex sample
- Subjects :
- [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio]
Fractionation
Biology
Proteomics
Mass spectrometry
Biochemistry
Matrix (chemical analysis)
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
Cerebrospinal fluid
Lc ms ms
medicine
Pre-fractionation
Solid phase extraction
Molecular Biology
030304 developmental biology
0303 health sciences
Chromatography
Cell Biology
Trypsin
Computer Science Applications
[SDV] Life Sciences [q-bio]
030217 neurology & neurosurgery
Biomarkers
medicine.drug
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 0974276X
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics, Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics, OMICS international 2015, s5, ⟨10.4172/JPB.S5-003⟩, Journal of Proteomics and Bioinformatics, 2015, s5, ⟨10.4172/JPB.S5-003⟩
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....ec23073dc6bdf153ece29e3085fbdf4d
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.4172/JPB.S5-003⟩