|
Advertisement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 4:1754-1761, 2005.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
50 for Coomassie Brilliant BlueTM, 1,000 for silver staining procedures, and up to 10,000 for fluorescent dyes (13, 14). In correlation, chromatographic separation is limited in binding capacity and dynamic range, too. Consequently, in complex mixtures proteins expressed at low levels cannot be analyzed extensively in the presence of high abundance proteins. To handle these limitations prefractionation is a useful and inevitable approach for the reduction of sample complexity thus leading to a facilitated access to the subproteome of interest(15, 16). Subcellular fractionation grants the advantage that nearly all proteins that are not localized to the organelle of interest are removed or at least significantly depleted. To obtain a better representation of hydrophobic proteins the application of stronger detergents in subsequent separations is mandatory. Common SDS-PAGE is a well established technique but has the disadvantage of inferior resolution when separating complex protein mixtures. Recently 16-BAC/SDS-PAGE has gained broad application for the separation of membrane and hydrophobic proteins (17, 18). This technique is based on the consecutive separation of proteins by means of electrophoretic mobility using two different detergents, the cationic 16-BAC in the first and the anionic SDS in the second dimension (19). In comparison to 2D-PAGE the resolution is reduced but still much better than in one-dimensional gel systems. By using a two-dimensional separation technique the proteins are focused within spots, which increases their local concentration compared with one-dimensional gels where proteins are localized in broad bands. Additionally, improved resolution reduces the number of different proteins in single spots, leading to a better accessibility of low abundance proteins in the sample.
| EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Platelet Preparation
With the approval of the ethics commission of the University of Wuerzburg fresh platelet concentrates with a total amount of approximately 1011 cells were used as samples. The preparation protocol was performed according to Authi (20). Briefly, plasma was centrifuged twice at 200 x g and 20 °C for 15 min to remove residual red and white blood cells. Afterward the suspension was acidified with citrate buffer (0.3 M citric acid) to pH 6.4, and subsequently platelets were pelleted at 1,200 x g and 20 °C for 10 min. The cells were reconstituted in neuraminidase treatment buffer (152 mM NaCl, 3 mM EDTA, 10 mM Hepes, 4.17 mM KCl, pH 6.4) and incubated for 20 min with 0.05 unit/ml neuraminidase at 37 °C. After treatment platelets were rebuffered to pH 7.2 and washed twice with Hepes washing buffer (152 mM NaCl, 3 mM EDTA, 10 mM Hepes, 4.17 mM KCl, pH 7.2). Sedimented platelets were resuspended in ice-cold sonication buffer (0.34 M sorbitol, 10 mM Hepes, one tablet Complete Mini in 50 ml of buffer, 0.3 unit/ml aprotinin, 1 mM DTT, 200 µM PMSF) for subsequent lysis.
Platelet Lysis and Membrane Preparation
Disintegration of cells was performed by ultrasonication (Bandelin Sonoplus, Berlin, Germany) for 20 s at 70% maximum power. Lysate was separated from cell debris by centrifugation at 1,500 x g and 4 °C. Precleared lysate was applied onto a discontinuous sorbitol gradient (3.5, 1.8, and 1.0 M in Hepes washing buffer) and centrifuged in a Beckman-Coulter SW 41Ti-rotor at 36,000 rpm for 1.5 h at 4 °C. The crude membrane sample was collected at the 1.0 and 1.8 M interface. Membrane fragments were sedimented by an additional centrifugation step with a TLA 120.2 rotor at 100,000 rpm and 4 °C. Afterward the crude membrane pellet was suspended in ice-cold sodium carbonate buffer (100 mM, pH 11.5), stirred on ice for 1 h, and pelleted by centrifugation as described before. The carbonate-extracted pellet was suspended in Triton X-114 and extracted with Hepes washing buffer at 4 °C for 1 h. After incubation for 15 min at 37 °C the organic and aqueous phase were separated (21, 22). Proteins solubilized in the organic phase were precipitated with TCA/acetone according to Jiang et al. (23).
Protein Separation
Proteins were reduced with DTT and solubilized with lithium dodecylsulfate sample buffer (Invitrogen). Samples were separated on 10% precast BisTris gels (NuPAGETM, Invitrogen). 16-BAC/SDS-PAGE separation was performed as described previously (24). Briefly, 16-BAC gels were cast in glass tubes (1-mm inner diameter, 15-cm length). First dimension separation was accomplished in a tube gel IEF apparatus (Model 175 tube cell, Bio-Rad). Afterward gels were rebuffered for 20 min in 100 mM Tris, pH 6.8, and incubated for 15 min in reducing SDS sample buffer before application onto 12.5% SDS-Tris-glycine gels (20 x 24 cm). Gels were silver-stained using a protocol according to Mortz et al. (25) that is compatible with mass spectrometry.
Immunodetection of G-protein-coupled Receptors
Protein samples were separated by gel electrophoresis and transferred onto a nitrocellulose membrane (Hybond-ECL, Amersham Biosciences) with the Novex X-Blot cell (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturers instructions. Detection of P2Y12 was performed with the ECL Advance detection kit (Amersham Biosciences) with a 1:4,000-fold dilution of the polyclonal anti-P2Y12 antibody (Acris, Karlsruhe, Germany) and a dilution of 1:8,000 of a secondary anti-rabbit horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-IgG antibody (Sigma). X-ray films were exposed to the immunoblot for 1 min and developed with the X-Omat 1000 x-ray developer (Eastman Kodak Co.).
In-gel Digestion and Peptide Extraction
Sample preparation was performed according to the protocol of Shevchenko et al. (26). Briefly, samples were washed two times alternating with 50 mM ammonium hydrogen carbonate buffer and 25 mM ammonium hydrogen carbonate buffer with 50% acetonitrile. Proteins were reduced with 10 mM DTT for 30 min at 56 °C and subsequently alkylated by incubation with 20 mM iodoacetamide at room temperature for 30 min. Again samples were washed as described before. Gel pieces were shrunken in a SpeedVac (Thermo Electron, Dreieich, Germany) and rehydrated with 12.5 ng of trypsin in 50 mM ammonium hydrogen carbonate buffer. Digestion was performed by incubation at 37 °C overnight. The resulting peptides were extracted by application of 15 µl of 5% formic acid for 10 min.
LC-MS Analysis
For reversed phase separation 0.1% formic acid as solvent A and 0.1% formic acid with 84% acetonitrile as solvent B were used. Separation was performed on the Ultimate nano-HPLC system (Dionex, Idstein, Germany) consisting of an autosampler, a loading pump, and a nano-HPLC gradient pump combined with a 75-µm-inner diameter column (C18 PepMapTM, 15-cm length, 3-µm particle size, and 100-Å pore size). Peptides were preconcentrated onto a 300-µm-inner diameter C18 PepMap column of 1-mm length at a flow rate of 25 µl/min. Separation was performed with a flow rate of 250 nl/min using a binary gradient starting at 5% solvent B rising to 50% in 30 min. After elution the column was rinsed with 95% solvent B for 10 min and subsequently equilibrated with 5% solvent B for 20 min. Peptides were directly eluted into an ESI mass spectrometer. For mass spectrometric analysis an ESI ion trap LCQTM Deca XP Plus (Thermo Electron, Dreieich, Germany) and an ESI-Q-TOF QStar XL or an ESI linear ion trap QTrap 4000 (both Applied Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany) were used. MS acquisition duty cycle was set up with a 1-s survey scan and three dependent scans (each
1 s) with the ion trap mass spectrometers or 2-s survey scans and two dependent scans, each 2 s, for the ESI-Q-TOF mass spectrometer.
Data Interpretation
Mass spectra were transformed into peak lists in dta or mgf format using the two in-house software solutions wiff2dta (27) and raw2dta, respectively. We applied the default values for generating mgf or dta files. Generated data were processed in parallel with the search algorithms SequestTM (28) (Version 27) and MascotTM (29) (Version 1.8). For sequence alignment the human National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) subdatabase from December 2004 was used. As fixed modification carbamidomethylation of cysteine residues was used, and as variable modification oxidation of methionine residues was selected. As filter criteria for Sequest we accepted in the first instance only positive peptide hits with a minimum cross-correlation factor of 2.5, a
CN value of 0.25, and a preliminary ranking of one. For the Mascot algorithm the minimum score was set to 35 for each peptide. Only protein hits that were identified with these parameters by both algorithms and had at minimum two identified peptides were accepted. Additionally all significant hits were revised manually. Afterward the NCBI gene indices were transformed to the corresponding Swiss-Prot accession numbers to avoid redundancies and improve lucidity.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Protein Separation
Although mass spectrometry represents a very sensitive and versatile method for protein identification, it is mandatory to reduce sample complexity prior to analysis as much as possible. The introduction of additional separation dimensions enables access to low abundance proteins and increases the number of detected and identified peptides per protein. For these reasons we established various protein separation techniques and combined them with the segregation of the resulting peptides by reversed phase chromatography after proteolytic digest. On the one hand, common 1D-SDS-PAGE is a very popular and robust system and has only a few restrictions concerning the separation of proteins in a wide molecular mass range between 5 and 250 kDa. On the other hand, it lacks sufficient resolution for the discrete separation of several hundreds of proteins. Therefore, even a single gel slice of 1-mm width from a complex sample may contain several dozens of proteins rendering it impossible to identify all components by LC-MS/MS due to the limited dynamic range. Nevertheless, SDS-PAGE is a valuable technique for less complex samples, e.g. prefractionated membrane proteins. By excision of the complete separation lane into 1-mm-broad slices almost the complete sample is recovered from the gel. For overcoming the disadvantages of the one-dimensional SDS-PAGE, 16-BAC/SDS-PAGE was used because of its increased resolution. Fig. 2 represents the protein separation of membrane fractions from different preparation steps. Although the observed resolution is inferior to classical 2D-PAGE it is significantly higher compared with 1D-SDS-PAGE. In addition, proteins are focused to spots leading to a higher local concentration and improving subsequent protein identification in terms of sensitivity.
|
Protein Identification
Protein identification by mass spectrometry requires complete and detailed protein databases generated from genome sequencing projects. In general, the NCBI or Swiss-Prot databases are used as data sources for these purposes. In our case, we decided to use the human NCBI subdatabase for the search and subsequently transformed the NCBI accession numbers to Swiss-Prot identifiers to reduce redundancy. Because the two search algorithms Sequest and Mascot use either statistical or determining tests for spectra evaluation and benchmarking we decided to rely on both algorithms in parallel and accepted only positive identifications if both algorithms identified the same protein.
Although the majority of identifications are unambiguously correct, in some cases spectra were assigned to false-positive hits, or a protein was identified with only a single peptide. For these reasons we applied filter criteria to ensure that questionable protein identifications were not considered in our result list. Most proteins were identified by multiple peptides, and additionally we revised all peptide spectra manually to remove false-positive hits. To increase the reliability of the identification we repeated the analysis with independently prepared samples. In general, it could be observed that several well known membrane proteins, e.g. GPIIb/IIIa, had very high signal intensities and could be identified with very high sequence coverages.
Altogether we identified 297 different species (see Supplemental Table 1). We extracted the localization and functional information from the Swiss-Prot database for all identified proteins and arranged them according to their subcellular localization. In some cases either no localization data could be obtained or localization data were not exactly determined. These proteins were automatically arranged in the group "unknown/no information." Based on these data we identified 83 plasma membrane proteins (27.8%). Additionally, we found 48 membrane proteins that are localized in other cellular compartments such as mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and vesicles. After manual revision of the complete list we assigned an additional 24 proteins as membrane-related or -associated, e.g. G-proteins. Furthermore, we analyzed several hypothetical and putative receptors from the group with no localization information by using the algorithms SOSUI (31) and TMHMM Version 2.0 (32) for the calculation of putative transmembrane domains. For 19 proteins with no defined localization the algorithms predicted one or more TMDs, whereas nine of them are also marked as hypothetical proteins. To test the reliability of these computational tools we calculated the predicted values for all proteins in the protein list. In general, both algorithms seem to be able to classify potential membrane proteins correctly. However, the numbers of calculated TMDs differed several times. For instance, the protein potassium-transporting ATPase
chain 2 (P54707) has seven TMDs according to the SOSUI algorithm, whereas TMHMM predicted only one. Thus, the absolute number of predicted membrane domains should be regarded very carefully. About 17% of all identifications were classified as cytosolic proteins. Many of these are known cytoskeletal or cytoskeleton-associated proteins, such as actin, myosin, and filamin, with high abundance and presence in multiple isoforms. Because several of these proteins interact with membrane proteins either directly or via adaptors the complete removal seems to be infeasible by this approach. But still the overall majority of these proteins were depleted compared with the initial amounts in complete cell lysates. Because this preparation approach does not focus on plasma membrane proteins exclusively, a noticeable amount of other membranous proteins also is present in the prepared samples. However, in some cases a discrete classification of the definite localization of these proteins cannot be performed because of the dynamic changes in the cell. Although we could not identify known G-protein-coupled receptors on platelets by mass spectrometry we were able to detect P2Y12 via immunoblotting (see Fig. 1B). The comparison of signal intensities from the complete cell lysate with purified membrane proteins indicates enrichment of this protein as well. In the case of P2Y12 the signal is co-located with the actin band. Therefore, the identification by LC-MS/MS seems to have failed due to suppression effects. Additionally GPCRs with their seven-TMD structure are not well accessible by digestion with trypsin because the hydrophobic regions normally do not contain any basic amino acids, leading to very long tryptic peptides, which cannot be analyzed classically by reversed phase separation with C18 phases. In further studies we will have to evaluate the influence of the digestion with other proteases to obtain more appropriate peptides from hydrophobic proteins.
Regarding the different protein datasets obtained from the analysis of the two gel systems, we found 233 proteins from the 16-BAC/SDS gels compared with 140 hits from 1D SDS-PAGE. 75 proteins, which equal 25%, were identified out of both gel systems, leading to the assumption that each gel system is preferably suited for different proteins and produces different protein subsets. One possible explanation for this result could be deviation in sample treatment. Protein samples were heated in lithium dodecylsulfate sample buffer at 80 °C for common SDS-PAGE, which could result in precipitation of several proteins, whereas for the 16-BAC gels the samples were incubated in the 16-BAC sample buffer at 60 °C. Additionally, the enhanced resolution and consequentially better protein separation provide higher sensitivity. For this reason glycoprotein VI (33) with an estimated copy number of about 1,000 per cell and the tetraspanin receptor tetraspan net-5 (34) were exclusively identified after separation with the 16-BAC/SDS system (Fig. 3). Comparing these results with the protein identification of SDS-PAGE-separated samples, both approaches seem to be complementing each other because several potentially interesting proteins such as G6b-A (35) and some hypothetical proteins (see Table I) were only identified by the SDS-PAGE separation technique. To benchmark these results with state-of-the-art proteome studies we merged three 2D PAGE-based platelet proteome studies into a single non-redundant protein dataset corresponding to 408 unique protein species and classified them in the same way we did with our own data (Fig. 4). After classification, we assigned
10% of all proteins to be membrane-related compared with 57% in our proteome study. However, the usage of classical 2D PAGE grants better access to soluble proteins, which is represented by the fact that about 50% of all identified proteins are localized in the cytosol. Hence both approaches should be taken as complementary proteome studies that have both their advantages and disadvantages.
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We examined the group of unknown localized proteins by analyzing the sequences with different algorithms to evaluate their putative localization and probable function. In Table I we extracted a short excerpt of four new potential receptors or membrane proteins that were analyzed with the SMART (40, 41) algorithm available on line and the Pfam (42) toolset. In two cases a protein module could be identified that gave us a first assumption about the potential function of these proteins. For G6b-A an Ig domain was found indicating the potential function of an Ig-like receptor. The hypothetical protein Q9BSJ8 contains five C2 domains like several membrane proteins that are involved in signal transduction. For the remaining four proteins the SMART algorithm could not detect any known protein module. Additionally we used the BLAST algorithm to analyze the proteins for homologues. Although we found homologues for two additional proteins, the function was not known for these proteins either. Regarding the complete list of identified proteins (Supplemental Table 1) only some of the known GPCRs are absent. To test whether the isolation protocol is inappropriate to purify these proteins we performed an immunoblot, which detected the P2Y12 receptor (Fig. 1B). The intensity signals showed an increase in the concentration of this particular receptor by each applied purification step. The reason why identification by mass spectrometry was not yet possible can be explained by two facts. First the GPCR itself has a seven-transmembrane motif that yield no utilizable peptides for C18 reversed phase HPLC separation after tryptic digest. Therefore, only a very small number of applicable tryptic peptides are available for these proteins. Second the expression rate of GPCRs is quite low, which is noted in Table II where G-protein-coupled receptors on platelet membranes are present with only a few hundred copies per cell. Due to the limited dynamic range and sample complexity it is very difficult to obtain good quality MS spectra for these proteins. This can also be observed in the case of P2Y12, which is co-localized with the residual actin band on the 1D-SDS-PAGE separation (see Fig. 1). Further studies are in progress to assess whether an improved separation resolution will be sufficient to provide the access to this membrane protein class. Additionally, application of different proteases such as chymotrypsin, Glu-C, or enolase will produce different peptides that have a better capability for MS analysis. Furthermore, application of so-called gas phase fractionation will be another task to improve detection sensitivity and dynamic range (4345). This approach uses the ability to divide the complete m/z range into smaller acquisition windows but requires the repetitive separation and analysis of the same sample several times. In conclusion, we demonstrate the application of a comprehensive proteome study on platelet membrane proteins with sufficient prefractionation methods and suitable separation techniques in parallel to obtain maximized proteome coverage (4650).
|
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 The abbreviations used are: 2D, two-dimensional; 1D, one-dimensional; 16-BAC, benzyldimethyl-n-hexadecylammonium chloride; GPCR, G-protein-coupled receptor; TMD, transmembrane domain; BisTris, 2-[bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol; GP, lycoprotein. ![]()
* This work was supported by grants from Stiftung für Pathobiochemie und Molekulare Diagnostik, Germany and Grant FZT 82 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. ![]()
S The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.mcponline.org) contains supplemental material. ![]()
Published, MCP Papers in Press, August 3, 2005, DOI 10.1074/mcp.M500209-MCP200.
¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Rudolf Virchow Center for Experimental Biomedicine, Protein Mass Spectrometry and Functional Proteomics Group, Rm. 411, Versbacher Strasse 9, 97078 Wuerzburg, Germany. Tel.: 49-931-201-48730; Fax: 49-931-201-48123; E-mail: albert.sickmann{at}virchow.uni-wuerzburg.de
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
R and the natural killer receptors.
J. Biol. Chem.
274, 29019
29024This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
U. Lewandrowski, S. Wortelkamp, K. Lohrig, R. P. Zahedi, D. A. Wolters, U. Walter, and A. Sickmann Platelet membrane proteomics: a novel repository for functional research Blood, July 2, 2009; 114(1): e10 - e19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Cagney and J. McRedmond A Central Resource for Platelet Proteomics Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., July 1, 2008; 28(7): 1214 - 1215. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Dittrich, I. Birschmann, S. Mietner, A. Sickmann, U. Walter, and T. Dandekar Platelet Protein Interactions: Map, Signaling Components, and Phosphorylation Groundstate Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., July 1, 2008; 28(7): 1326 - 1331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Sidibe, X. Yin, E. Tarelli, Q. Xiao, A. Zampetaki, Q. Xu, and M. Mayr Integrated Membrane Protein Analysis of Mature and Embryonic Stem Cell-derived Smooth Muscle Cells Using a Novel Combination of CyDye/Biotin Labeling Mol. Cell. Proteomics, October 1, 2007; 6(10): 1788 - 1797. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. M. Casey, J. L. Meade, and E. W. Hewitt Organelle Proteomics: Identification of the Exocytic Machinery Associated with the Natural Killer Cell Secretory Lysosome Mol. Cell. Proteomics, May 1, 2007; 6(5): 767 - 780. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. A. Senis, M. G. Tomlinson, A. Garcia, S. Dumon, V. L. Heath, J. Herbert, S. P. Cobbold, J. C. Spalton, S. Ayman, R. Antrobus, et al. A Comprehensive Proteomics and Genomics Analysis Reveals Novel Transmembrane Proteins in Human Platelets and Mouse Megakaryocytes Including G6b-B, a Novel Immunoreceptor Tyrosine-based Inhibitory Motif Protein Mol. Cell. Proteomics, March 1, 2007; 6(3): 548 - 564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. V. Gnatenko, P. L. Perrotta, and W. F. Bahou Proteomic approaches to dissect platelet function: half the story Blood, December 15, 2006; 108(13): 3983 - 3991. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Yin, R. I. Litvinov, G. Vilaire, H. Zhu, W. Li, G. A. Caputo, D. T. Moore, J. D. Lear, J. W. Weisel, W. F. DeGrado, et al. Activation of Platelet {alpha}IIbbeta3 by an Exogenous Peptide Corresponding to the Transmembrane Domain of {alpha}IIb J. Biol. Chem., December 1, 2006; 281(48): 36732 - 36741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASBMB Journals | Journal of Biological Chemistry |
| Journal of Lipid Research | ASBMB Today |