4.8 Article

In-Line Sample Processing System with an Immobilized Trypsin-Packed Fused-Silica Capillary Tube for the Proteomic Analysis of a Small Number of Mammalian Cells

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 2997-3005

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b03993

关键词

-

资金

  1. JST-CREST Program of the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) [JPMJCR15G4]
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [17H06304]
  3. JSPS [17H06011, 19H04969, 19H05243, 19K05167]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19H05243, 19K05167, 17H06011, 19H04969] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Omics analysis at single-cell resolution has helped to demonstrate the shaping of cellular heterogeneity on the basis of the expression of various molecules. However, in-depth proteomic analysis of low-quantity samples has remained challenging because of difficulties associated with the measurement of large numbers of proteins by shotgun proteomics using nanoflow liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (nano-LC/MS/MS). To meet such a demand, we developed a method called in-line sample preparation for efficient cellular proteomics (ISPEC) in which cells were captured, directly lysed, and digested with immobilized trypsin within fused-silica capillaries. ISPEC minimized sample loss during the sample preparation processes with a relatively small number of mammalian cells (<1000 cells) and improved the stability and efficiency of digestion by immobilized trypsin, compared to a conventional preparation method. Using our optimized ISPEC method with nano-LC/MS/MS analysis, we identified 1351, 351, and 60 proteins from 100 cells, 10 cells, and single cells, respectively. The linear response of the signal intensity of each peptide to the introduced cell number indicates the quantitative recovery of the proteome from a very small number of cells. Thus, our ISPEC strategy facilitates quantitative proteomic analysis of small cell populations.

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

4.8
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