Use of HIC high resolution chromatography and elastase for bottom up proteomics

One of the key applications used to characterize single or complex protein mixtures via bottom up proteomics is liquid chromatography−tandem mass spectrometry (LC−MS/MS).
Recent technical advances allow for identification of >10 000 proteins in a cancer cell line. On the peptide level chromatography methods, like strong cation exchange (SCX)
and hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC), as well as high-pH reversed phase chromatography have been employed successfully. Because of its robustness
and ease of handling, the classical and still widely used approach for protein fractionation prior to LC− MS/MS is gel-based separation under denaturing conditions (SDS-PAGE).
Hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) is a robust standard analytical method to purify proteins while preserving their biological activity. It is widely used
to study post-translational modifications of proteins and drug−protein interactions.  HIC is a high-resolution chromatography mode based on the interaction of
weakly hydrophobic ligands of the stationary phase with hydrophobic patches on the surface of the tertiary structure of proteins. By employment of high concentrations
of structure-promoting (“kosmotropic”) salts, proteins in HIC retain their conform

In a recent publication, HIC was used to separate proteins, followed by bottom up LC−MS/MS experiments (1).  HIC was used to fractionate antibody species
followed by comprehensive peptide mapping as well as to study protein complexes in human cells. The results indicated that HIC−reversed-phase chromatography (RPC)
mass spectrometry (MS) is a powerful alternative to fractionate proteins for bottom-up proteomics experiments making use of their distinct hydrophobic properties.

An additional observation noted that tryptic digests of the antibody used in the study yielded a protein coverage of 56% for the light chain and 63.2% for the
heavy chain. A consecutive proteolytic digestion protocol combing on-filter trypsin and elastase digestion drastically improved sequence coverage of
both light (100%) and heavy chains (99.2%).

Reference
1. Rackiewicz, M. et al. (2017) Hydrophobic Interaction Chromatography for Bottom-Up Proteomics Analysis of Single Proteins and Protein Complexes. J.Proteome.Res. 16, 2318–23.

Filter-Aided Sample Preparation before Mass Spec Analysis: An Evaluation of FASP and eFASP

12271ma_800pxFilter-aided sample preparation (FASP) method is used for the on-filter digestion of proteins prior to mass-spectrometry-based analyses (1,2). FASP was designed for the removal of detergents, and chaotropes that were used for sample preparation. In addition, FASP removes components such as salts, nucleic acids and lipids. Akylation of reduced cysteine residues is also carried out on filter, after which protein is proteolyzed by use of trypsin on filter in the optimal buffer of the enzyme. Subsequent elution and desalting of the peptide-rich solution then provides a sample ready for LC–MS/MS analysis.

Erde et al. (3) described an enhanced FASP (eFASP) workflow that included 0.2% DCA in the exchange, alkylation, and digestion buffers,thus enhancing trypsin proteolysis, resulting in increases cytosolic and membrane protein representation. DCA has been reported (4) to improve the efficiency of the denaturation, solubilization, and tryptic digestion of proteins, particularly proteolytically resistant myoglobin and integral membrane proteins, thereby enhancing the efficiency of their identification with regard to the number of identified proteins and unique peptides.

In a recent publication (5) traditional FASP and eFASP were re-evaluated by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to a quadrupole mass filter Orbitrap analyzer (Q Exactive). The results indicate that at the protein level, both methods extracted essentially the same number of hydrophobic transmembrane containing proteins as well as proteins associated with the cytoplasm or the cytoplasmic and outer membranes.

The LC–MS/MS results indicate that FASP and eFASP showed no significant differences at the protein level. However, because of the slight differences in selectivity at the physicochemical level of peptides, these methods can be seen to be somewhat complementary for analyses of complex peptide mixtures.

  1. Manza, L. L. et al. (2005) Sample preparation and digestion for proteomic analyses using spin filters Proteomics  5, 1742–74.
  2. Wiśniewski, J. R. et al. (2009) Universal sample preparation method for proteome analysis Nat. Methods 6, 359–62.
  3. Erde, J. et al. (2014) Enhanced FASP (eFASP) to increase proteomic coverage and sample recovery for quantitative proteome experiments. J. Proteome Res. 13, 1885–95.
  4. Lin, Y. et al. (2008) Sodium-deoxycholate-assisted tryptic digestion and identification of proteolytically resistant proteins Anal. Biochem.  377, 259–66.
  5. Nel. A. et al. (2015) Comparative Reevaluation of FASP and Enhanced FASP methods by LC-MS/MS/ J Proteome Res. 14, 1637–42.