Skip to main content

Quality control of purified proteins to improve data quality and reproducibility: results from a large-scale survey

Abstract

As the scientific community strives to make published results more transparent and reliable, it has become obvious that poor data reproducibility can often be attributed to insufficient quality control of experimental reagents. In this context, proteins and peptides reagents require much stricter quality controls than those routinely performed on them in a significant proportion of research laboratories. Members of the ARBRE-MOBIEU and the P4EU networks have combined their expertise to generate guidelines for the evaluation of purified proteins used in life sciences and medical trials. These networks, representing more than 150 laboratories specialized in protein production and/or protein molecular biophysics, have implemented such guidelines in their respective laboratories. Over a one-year period, the network members evaluated the contribution these guidelines made toward obtaining more productive, robust and reproducible research by correlating the applied quality controls to given samples with the reliability and reproducibility of the scientific data obtained using these samples in follow-up experiments. The results indicate that QC guideline implementation facilitates the optimization of the protein purification process and improves the reliability of downstream experiments. It seems, therefore, that investing in protein QC might be advantageous to all the stakeholders in life sciences (researchers, editors, and funding agencies alike), because this practice improves data veracity and minimizes loss of valuable time and resources. In the light of these conclusions, the network members suggest that the implementation of these simple QC guidelines should become minimal reporting practice in the publication of data derived from the use of protein and peptide reagents.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Announcement (2013) Reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 496:398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Announcement (2017) Towards greater reproducibility for life-sciences research in Nature. Nature 546:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker M (2016) Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature 533:452–454

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begley CG, Ioannidis JP (2015) Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res 116:116–126

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury A, Plückthun A (2015) Reproducibility: standardize antibodies used in research. Nature 518:27–29

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckle AM et al (2011) Recombinant protein quality evaluation: proposal for a minimal information standard. Stand Genomic Sci 5:195–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins FS, Tabak LA (2014) NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505:612–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Marco A (2010) Reagent validation: an underestimated issue in laboratory practice. J Mol Recognit 23:136

    Google Scholar 

  • de Marco A, Berrow N, Lebendiker M, Garcia-Alai M, Knauer SH, Lopez-Mendez B, Matagne A, Parret A, Remans K, Uebel S, Raynal B (2021) Quality control of protein reagents for the improvement of research data reproducibility. Nat commun (in press)

  • Dupeux F, Röwer M, Seroul G, Blot D, Márquez JA (2011) A thermal stability assay can help to estimate the crystallization likelihood of biological samples. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 67:915

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Free T (2020) The ABCs of reproducibility; effecting attitudes, behaviors and change. Biotechniques 69:359–361

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol 13:e1002165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gräslund S (2008) Protein production and purification. Nat Methods 5:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebendiker M, Danieli T, de Marco A (2014) The Trip Adviser guide to the protein science world: a proposal to improve the awareness concerning the quality of recombinant proteins. BMC Res Notes 7:585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medrano G, Dolan MC, Condori J, Radin DN, Cramer CL (2012) Quality assessment of recombinant proteins produced in plants. In: Lrence A (ed) Recombinant gene expression: methods and applications. Methods Mol Biol 824:535–64

  • Monsellier E, Bedouelle H (2005) Quantitative measurement of protein stability from unfolding equilibria monitored with the fluorescence maximum wavelength. Protein Eng Des Sel 18:445

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynal B, Lenormand P, Baron B, Hoos S, England P (2014) Quality assessment and optimization of purified protein samples: why and how? Microb Cell Fact 13:180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynal B, Brûlé S, Uebel S, Knauer SH (2021) Assessing and Improving protein sample quality. In: Daviter T, Williams M (eds) Protein-ligand interactions: methods and applications. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature collections: special 18 Octrober 2018 Challenges in irreproducible research. https://www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz. Accessed 20 Apr 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

ARBRE-MOBIEU is supported by European CO-operation in Science and Technology (COST) Action number CA15126. We thank all the collaborating laboratories (see Supplementary Materials 2) for providing results on their samples.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertrand Raynal.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Special Issue: COST Action CA15126, MOBIEU: Between atom and cell.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 177 KB)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 185 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berrow, N., de Marco, A., Lebendiker, M. et al. Quality control of purified proteins to improve data quality and reproducibility: results from a large-scale survey. Eur Biophys J 50, 453–460 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00249-021-01528-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00249-021-01528-2