4.7 Article

imFASP: An integrated approach combining in-situ filter-aided sample pretreatment with microwave-assisted protein digestion for fast and efficient proteome sample preparation

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 912, 期 -, 页码 58-64

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2016.01.049

关键词

In-situ; Sample preparation; Filter; Microwave; Trace proteome analysis

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB910604]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [21405153, 21505136]
  3. Creative Research Group Project by NSFC [21321064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An integrated sample preparation method, termed imFASP, which combined in-situ filter-aided sample pretreatment and microwave-assisted trypsin digestion, was developed for preparation of microgram and even nanogram amounts of complex protein samples with high efficiency in 1 h. For imFASP method, proteins dissolved in 8 M urea were loaded onto a filter device with molecular weight cut off (MWCO) as 10 kDa, followed by in-situ protein preconcentration, denaturation, reduction, alkylation, and microwave-assisted tryptic digestion. Compared with traditional in-solution sample preparation method, imFASP method generated more protein and peptide identifications (IDs) from preparation of 45 mg Escherichia coli protein sample due to the higher efficiency, and the sample preparation throughput was significantly improved by 14 times (1 h vs. 15 h). More importantly, when the starting amounts of E. coli cell lysate decreased to nanogram level (50-500 ng), the protein and peptide identified by imFASP method were improved at least 30% and 44%, compared with traditional in-solution preparation method, suggesting dramatically higher peptide recovery of imFASP method for trace amounts of complex proteome samples. All these results demonstrate that the imFASP method developed here is of high potential for high efficient and high throughput preparation of trace amounts of complex proteome samples. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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