Advertisement

Sample Preparation for Metaproteome Analyses of Soil and Leaf Litter

  • Katharina M. Keiblinger
  • Katharina Riedel
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1841)

Abstract

Soil and litter metaproteomics, assigning soil and litter proteins to specific phylogenetic and functional groups, has a great potential to shed light on the impact of microbial diversity on soil ecosystem functioning. However, metaproteomic analysis of soil and litter is often hampered by the enormous heterogeneity of the soil matrix and high concentrations of humic acids. To circumvent these challenges, sophisticated protocols for sample preparation have to be applied. This chapter provides the reader with detailed information on well-established protocols for protein extraction from soil and litter samples together with protocols for further sample preparation for subsequent MS analyses.

Key words

Soil sampling Homogenization Matrix effects Interfering substances Protein separation SDS-PAGE In-gel digestion Reducing sample complexity 

References

  1. 1.
    Becher D, Bernhardt J, Fuchs S, Riedel K (2013) Metaproteomics to unravel major microbial players in leaf litter and soil environments: challenges and perspectives. Proteomics 13(18–19):2895–2909Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keiblinger KM, Fuchs S, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Riedel K (2016) Soil and leaf litter metaproteomics—a brief guideline from sampling to understanding. FEMS Microbiol EcolGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneider T, Gerrits B, Gassmann R, Schmid E, Gessner MO, Richter A, Battin T, Eberl L, Riedel K (2010) Proteome analysis of fungal and bacterial involvement in leaf litter decomposition. Proteomics 10(9):1819–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keiblinger KM, Schneider T, Roschitzki B, Schmid E, Eberl L, Hammerle I, Leitner S, Richter A, Wanek W, Riedel K, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S (2012) Effects of stoichiometry and temperature perturbations on beech leaf litter decomposition, enzyme activities and protein expression. Biogeosciences 9(11):4537–4551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneider T, Keiblinger KM, Schmid E, Sterflinger-Gleixner K, Ellersdorfer G, Roschitzki B, Richter A, Eberl L, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Riedel K (2012) Who is who in litter decomposition? Metaproteomics reveals major microbial players and their biogeochemical functions. ISME J 6(9):1749–1762CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benndorf D, Balcke GU, Harms H, von Bergen M (2007) Functional metaproteome analysis of protein extracts from contaminated soil and groundwater. ISME J 1(3):224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murase A, Yoneda M, Ueno R, Yonebayashi K (2003) Isolation of extracellular protein from greenhouse soil. Soil Biol Biochem 35(5):733–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Masciandaro G, Macci C, Doni S, Maserti BE, Leo ACB, Ceccanti B, Wellington E (2008) Comparison of extraction methods for recovery of extracellular beta-glucosidase in two different forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 40(9):2156–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen SN, Rillig MC, Wang W (2009) Improving soil protein extraction for metaproteome analysis and glomalin-related soil protein detection. Proteomics 9(21):4970–4973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang HB, Zhang ZX, Li H, He HB, Fang CX, Zhang AJ, Li QS, Chen RS, Guo XK, Lin HF, Wu LK, Lin S, Chen T, Lin RY, Peng XX, Lin WX (2011) Characterization of metaproteomics in crop Rhizospheric soil. J Proteome Res 10(3):932–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singleton I, Merrington G, Colvan S, Delahunty JS (2003) The potential of soil protein-based methods to indicate metal contamination. Appl Soil Ecol 23(1):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams MA, Taylor EB (2010) Microbial protein in soil: influence of extraction method and C amendment on extraction and recovery. Microb Ecol 59(2):390–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hettich RL, Chourey K, Jansson J, VerBerkmoes N, Shah M, Chavarria KL, Tom LM, Brodie EL (2010) Direct cellular Lysis/protein extraction protocol for soil metaproteomics. J Proteome Res 9(12):6615–6622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keiblinger KM, Wilhartitz IC, Schneider T, Roschitzki B, Schmid E, Eberl L, Riedel K, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S (2012) Soil metaproteomics—comparative evaluation of protein extraction protocols. Soil Biol Biochem 54(0):14–24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gunnigle E, Ramond JB, Frossard A, Seeley M, Cowan D (2014) A sequential co-extraction method for DNA, RNA and protein recovery from soil for future system-based approaches. J Microbiol Meth 103:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bastida F, Hernandez T, Garcia C (2014) Metaproteomics of soils from semiarid environment: functional and phylogenetic information obtained with different protein extraction methods. J Proteome 101:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO-10381-6 (2009) Part 6: guidance on the collection, handling and storage of soil under aerobic conditions for the assessment of microbiological processes, biomass and diversity in the laboratory. Soil quality—samplingGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore S, Stein WH (1954) A modified ninhydrin reagent for the photometric determination of amino acids and related compounds. J Biol Chem 211(2):907–913PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones DL, Owen AG, Farrar JF (2002) Simple method to enable the high resolution determination of total free amino acids in soil solutions and soil extracts. Soil Biol Biochem 34(12):1893–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boeddinghaus RS, Nunan N, Berner D, Marhan S, Kandeler E (2015) Do general spatial relationships for microbial biomass and soil enzyme activities exist in temperate grassland soils? Soil Biol Biochem 88:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu D, An SS, Cheng Y, Keiblinger K, Huang YM (2014) Variability in soil microbial biomass and diversity among different aggregate-size fractions of different land use types. Soil Sci 179(5):242–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keiblinger KM, Zehetner F, Mentler A (unpublished data). Low intensity ultrasonic vibration improves soil protein extraction efficiencyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute of Soil ResearchUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)ViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Microbial Physiology and Molecular Biology, Institute for MicrobiologyUniversity GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany

Personalised recommendations