4.7 Article

Tryptic digestion of human serum for proteomic mass spectrometry automated by centrifugal microfluidics

期刊

LAB ON A CHIP
卷 20, 期 16, 页码 2937-2946

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0lc00530d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen (AiF) within the project NanoPrep [19456 BG]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mass spectrometry has become an important analytical tool for protein research studies to identify, characterise and quantify proteins with unmatched sensitivity in a highly parallel manner. When transferred into clinical routine, the cumbersome and error-prone sample preparation workflows present a major bottleneck. In this work, we demonstrate tryptic digestion of human serum that is fully automated by centrifugal microfluidics. The automated workflow comprises denaturation, digestion and acidification. The input sample volume is 1.3 mu l only. A triplicate of human serum was digested with the developed microfluidic chip as well as with a manual reference workflow on three consecutive days to assess the performance of our system. After desalting and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, a total of 604 proteins were identified in the samples digested with the microfluidic chip and 602 proteins with the reference workflow. Protein quantitation was performed using the Hi3 method, yielding a 7.6% lower median intensity CV for automatically digested samples compared to samples digested with the reference workflow. Additionally, 17% more proteins were quantitated with less than 30% CV in the samples from the microfluidic chip, compared to the manual control samples. This improvement can be attributed to the accurate liquid metering with all volume CVs below 1.5% on the microfluidic chip. The presented automation solution is attractive for laboratories in need of robust automation of sample preparation from small volumes as well as for labs with a low or medium throughput that does not allow for large investments in robotic systems.

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