4.7 Article

Enhanced FASP (eFASP) to Increase Proteome Coverage and Sample Recovery for Quantitative Proteomic Experiments

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 1885-1895

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr4010019

关键词

filter-aided sample preparation; quantitative proteomics; detergent; ammonium deoxycholate; MSE

资金

  1. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [GM007185]
  2. National Institutes of Health [U19 AI067769]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The integrity of quantitative proteomic experiments depends on the reliability and the robustness of the protein extraction, solubilization, and digestion methods utilized. Combinations of detergents, chaotropes, and mechanical disruption can yield successful protein preparations; however, the methods subsequently required to eliminate these added contaminants, in addition to the salts, nucleic acids, and lipids already in the sample, can result in significant sample losses and incomplete contaminant removal. A recently introduced method for proteomic sample preparation, filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), cleverly circumvents many of the challenges associated with traditional protein purification methods but is associated with significant sample loss. Presented here is an enhanced FASP (eFASP) approach that incorporates alternative reagents to those of traditional FASP, improving sensitivity, recovery, and proteomic coverage for processed samples. The substitution of 0.2% deoxycholic acid for urea during eFASP digestion increases tryptic digestion efficiency for both cytosolic and membrane proteins yet obviates needed cleanup steps associated with use of the deoxycholate sodium salt. For classic FASP, prepassivating Microcon filter surfaces with 5% TWEEN-20 reduces peptide loss by 300%. An express eFASP method uses tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine and 4-vinylpyridine to alkylate proteins prior to deposition on the Microcon filter, increasing alkylation specificity and speeding processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据