Differences in Protein Capture by SP3 and SP4 Demonstrate Mechanistic Insights of Proteomics Cleanup Techniques

The goal of proteomics experiments is to identify proteins to observe changes in cellular processes and diseases. One challenge in proteomics is the removal of contaminants following protein extraction, which can limit protein identifications. Single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP3) is a cleanup technique in which proteins are captured on carboxylate-modified particles through a proposed hydrophilic-interaction-liquid-chromatography (HILIC)-like mechanism. Recent results have suggested that proteins are captured in SP3 due to a protein-aggregation mechanism. Solvent precipitation, single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP4) is a newer cleanup technique that employs protein aggregation to capture proteins without modified particles. We hypothesize that differences in capture mechanisms of SP3 and SP4 affect which proteins are identified by each cleanup technique. Herein, we assess the proteins identified and enriched using SP3 versus SP4 for MCF7 subcellular fractions and correlate protein capture in each method to protein hydrophobicity. Our results indicate that SP3 captures more hydrophilic proteins through a combination of HILIC-like and protein-aggregation mechanisms, while SP4 captures more hydrophobic proteins through a protein-aggregation mechanism. Ultimately, we demonstrate that protein-capture mechanisms are distinct, and the selection of a cleanup technique that yields high proteome coverage is dependent on protein-sample hydrophobicity. Data has been deposited into MassIVE (MSV000094130) and ProteomeXchange (PXD049965).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2024-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.4c00206
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.17

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Differences in Protein Capture by SP3 and SP4 Demonstrate Mechanistic Insights of Proteomics Cleanup Techniques

Elyssia S. Gallagher, Jacob T. Bailey, Joseph H. Taube, Adhwaitha M. Nambiar et al.
9 citations
Journal of Proteome Research
Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
2.17
article

Differences in Protein Capture by SP3 and SP4 Demonstrate Mechanistic Insights of Proteomics Cleanup Techniques

Elyssia S. Gallagher, Jacob T. Bailey, Joseph H. Taube, Adhwaitha M. Nambiar, Amanda M. Ziegler, Charli S. Worth, Jessica M. Conforti
article en
9 citations

Abstract

The goal of proteomics experiments is to identify proteins to observe changes in cellular processes and diseases. One challenge in proteomics is the removal of contaminants following protein extraction, which can limit protein identifications. Single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP3) is a cleanup technique in which proteins are captured on carboxylate-modified particles through a proposed hydrophilic-interaction-liquid-chromatography (HILIC)-like mechanism. Recent results have suggested that proteins are captured in SP3 due to a protein-aggregation mechanism. Solvent precipitation, single-pot, solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP4) is a newer cleanup technique that employs protein aggregation to capture proteins without modified particles. We hypothesize that differences in capture mechanisms of SP3 and SP4 affect which proteins are identified by each cleanup technique. Herein, we assess the proteins identified and enriched using SP3 versus SP4 for MCF7 subcellular fractions and correlate protein capture in each method to protein hydrophobicity. Our results indicate that SP3 captures more hydrophilic proteins through a combination of HILIC-like and protein-aggregation mechanisms, while SP4 captures more hydrophobic proteins through a protein-aggregation mechanism. Ultimately, we demonstrate that protein-capture mechanisms are distinct, and the selection of a cleanup technique that yields high proteome coverage is dependent on protein-sample hydrophobicity. Data has been deposited into MassIVE (MSV000094130) and ProteomeXchange (PXD049965).

Journal of Proteome ResearchVol. 23(9)
Baylor University (US)
Baylor University, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
2.17
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.