Advertisement

SWATH Mass Spectrometry Applied to Cerebrospinal Fluid Differential Proteomics: Establishment of a Sample-Specific Method

  • Sandra I. Anjo
  • Cátia Santa
  • Bruno Manadas
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2044)

Abstract

Mass spectrometry (MS) has become the gold standard method for proteomics by allowing the simultaneous identification and/or quantification of thousands of proteins of a given sample. Over time, mass spectrometry has evolved into newer quantitative approaches with increased sensitivity and accuracy, such as the sequential windows acquisition of all theoretical fragment-ion spectra (SWATH)-MS approach. Moreover, in the past few years, some improvements were made in the SWATH-acquisition algorithm, allowing the design of sample-customized acquisition methods by adjusting the Q1 windows’ width in order to reduce it in the most populated m/z regions. This customization results in an increase in the specificity and a reduction in the interferences, ultimately leading to an improvement in the amount of quantitative data extracted to eventually increase the proteome coverage. These improvements are especially relevant for clinical neuroproteomics, which is mainly based on the analysis of circulatory biofluids, in particular the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) due to its close connection with the brain.

In the present chapter, a detailed description of the methodologies necessary to perform a whole-proteome relative quantification of CSF samples by SWATH-MS is presented, starting with the isolation of the protein fraction, its preparation for MS analysis, with all the necessary information for the design of a SWATH-MS method specific for each sample batch, and finally providing different methodologies for the analysis of the quantitative data obtained.

Key words

CSF Untargeted proteomics SWATH-MS Variable Q1 windows 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) [PTDC/SAU-NMC/112183/2009, PTDC/NEU-NMC/0205/2012, PTDC/NEU-SCC/7051/2014, UID/NEU/04539/2013, UID/BIM/04773/2013, PEst-C/SAU/LA0001/2013-2014, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016428 (ref.: SAICTPAC/0010/2015), POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029311 (ref.: PTDC/BTM-TEC/29311/2017), POCI-01-0145-FEDER-30943 (ref.: PTDC/MEC-PSQ/30943/2017)] and cofinanced by “COMPETE Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade”, QREN; the European Union (FEDER—Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional) and by The National Mass Spectrometry Network (RNEM) (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-402-022125) (ref.: ROTEIRO/0028/2013). Cátia Santa is supported by FCT PhD fellowship SFRH/BD/88419/2012, cofinanced by the European Social Fund (ESF) through the POCH—Programa Operacional do Capital Humano and national funds via FCT.

References

  1. 1.
    Nery TGM, Silva EM, Tavares R, Passetti F (2019) The challenge to search for new nervous system disease biomarker candidates: the opportunity to use the proteogenomics approach. J Mol Neurosci 67:150–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anjo SI, Santa C, Manadas B (2015) Short GeLC-SWATH: a fast and reliable quantitative approach for proteomic screenings. Proteomics 15(4):757–762.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201400221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loos G, Van Schepdael A, Cabooter D (2016) Quantitative mass spectrometry methods for pharmaceutical analysis. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 374(2079):20150366.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anjo SI, Santa C, Manadas B (2017) SWATH-MS as a tool for biomarker discovery: from basic research to clinical applications. Proteomics 17(3–4).  https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201600278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Santa C, Anjo SI, Mendes VM, Manadas B (2015) Neuroproteomics—LC-MS quantitative approaches. InTech, RijekaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wahab MF, Dasgupta P, Kadjo A, Armstrong D (2016) Sampling frequency, response times and embedded signal filtration in fast, high efficiency liquid chromatography: a tutorial. Anal Chim Acta 907:31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2015.11.043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hunter C, Collins B, Gillet L, Aebersold R (2014) Increasing depth of coverage in data independent acquisition with acquisition improvements and higher sample loads. In: Proccedings of the 61st Annual ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry & Allied Topics, pp 15–19Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schilling B, Gibson BW, Hunter CL (2017) Generation of high-quality SWATH® acquisition data for label-free quantitative proteomics studies using TripleTOF® mass spectrometers. Methods Mol Biol 1550:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shoemaker LD, Achrol AS, Sethu P, Steinberg GK, Chang SD (2012) Clinical neuroproteomics and biomarkers: from basic research to clinical decision making. Neurosurgery 70(3):518–525.  https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182333a26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tumani H, Teunissen C, Süssmuth S, Otto M, Ludolph AC, Brettschneider J (2008) Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of neurodegeneration in chronic neurological diseases. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 8(4):479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khoonsari PE, Häggmark A, Lönnberg M, Mikus M, Kilander L, Lannfelt L, Bergquist J, Ingelsson M, Nilsson P, Kultima K (2016) Analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid proteome in Alzheimer’s disease. PLoS One 11(3):e0150672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anjo SI, Simões I, Castanheira P, Grãos M, Manadas B (2018) A generic normalization method for proper quantification in untargeted proteomics screening. bioRxiv.  https://doi.org/10.1101/307504
  13. 13.
    Anjo SI, Lourenco AS, Melo MN, Santa C, Manadas B (2016) Unraveling mesenchymal stem cells’ dynamic secretome through nontargeted proteomics profiling. Methods Mol Biol 1416:521–549.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3584-0_32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anjo SI, Santa C, Saraiva SC, Freitas K, Barah F, Carreira B, Araújo I, Manadas B (2017) Neuroproteomics using short GeLC-SWATH: from the evaluation of proteome changes to the clarification of protein function. Curr Proteomic Appr Appl Brain Funct:107–138Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheeren PJH, Klous Z, Smit HC, Doornbos DA (1985) A software package for the orthogonal polynomial approximation of analytical signals, including a simulation program for chromatograms and spectra. Anal Chim Acta 171:45–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)84183-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rowlen KL, Duell KA, Avery JP, Birks JW (1989) Whole column detection: application to high-performance liquid chromatography. Anal Chem 61(23):2624–2630.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00198a008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tang WH, Shilov IV, Seymour SL (2008) Nonlinear fitting method for determining local false discovery rates from decoy database searches. J Proteome Res 7(9):3661–3667.  https://doi.org/10.1021/pr070492fCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sennels L, Bukowski-Wills JC, Rappsilber J (2009) Improved results in proteomics by use of local and peptide-class specific false discovery rates. BMC Bioinformatics 10:179.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou J-Y, Chen L, Zhang B, Tian Y, Liu T, Thomas SN, Chen L, Schnaubelt M, Boja E, Hiltke T (2017) Quality assessments of long-term quantitative proteomic analysis of breast cancer xenograft tissues. J Proteome Res 16(12):4523–4530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen L, Zhai L, Qu C, Zhang C, Li S, Wu F, Qi Y, Lu F, Xu P, Li X (2016) Comparative proteomic analysis of buffalo oocytes matured in vitro using iTRAQ technique. Sci Rep 6:31795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Margolin AA, Ong S-E, Schenone M, Gould R, Schreiber SL, Carr SA, Golub TR (2009) Empirical Bayes analysis of quantitative proteomics experiments. PLoS One 4(10):e7454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bantscheff M, Schirle M, Sweetman G, Rick J, Kuster B (2007) Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: a critical review. Anal Bioanal Chem 389(4):1017–1031.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-007-1486-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang DW, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA (2008) Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat Protoc 4(1):44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang DW, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA (2008) Bioinformatics enrichment tools: paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res 37(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra I. Anjo
    • 1
  • Cátia Santa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruno Manadas
    • 1
  1. 1.CNC - Center for Neuroscience and Cell BiologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Institute for Interdisciplinary ResearchUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations