These findings imply that S-TRAP is the preferred choice for discovery-phase proteomics (biomarker hunting), while TG or SG should be prioritized for high-precision validation studies.
Abstract
High-throughput shotgun proteomics is often hindered by the incompatibility of detergents with mass spectrometry (MS), making sample preparation a critical bottleneck for accuracy and robustness. This challenge is amplified in muscle proteomics, where the high dynamic range of protein abundance requires highly efficient and reproducible workflows to capture low-abundance proteins. To address this, we performed a systematic benchmarking of five preparation methods—stacking-gel (SG), tube-gel (TG), solid-phase extraction (SPE), filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), and suspension traps (S-TRAP)—using the sarcoplasmic fraction of pig muscle. The protein extracts obtained were subjected to label-free semi-quantitative proteomic analysis using high-performance nano-liquid chromatography coupled to tandem MS. Qualitative and quantitative results were compared using bioinformatics and biostatistics tools. Our study identified 530 proteins with significant variations across methods. S-TRAP provided the highest identification depth, capturing the broadest proteome coverage. Conversely, the TG method demonstrated superior quantitative reproducibility, essential for detecting subtle physiological changes. For translational research, such as meat quality science or muscle-related clinical models, our findings imply that S-TRAP is the preferred choice for discovery-phase proteomics (biomarker hunting), while TG or SG should be prioritized for high-precision validation studies.
A scalable workflow for the deep proteomic analysis of low- to ultralow-input samples by systematically optimizing a widely adopted Orbitrap and UHPLC platform to maximize sensitivity, precision, and throughput is developed.
Dongyoon Shin, Sumin Lee, S. Yang et al.· Analytical Chemistry· 0 citations
Mass spectrometry-based chemical proteomics is a powerful method to analyze proteins labelled by small molecules to identify protein targets of active compounds and to profile protein post-translational modifications. The throughput and high protein input for chemical proteomics workflows has been often a limiting fact...
Liu Zang, Jonas Grandke, Jana Richter et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
Advances in mass spectrometry (MS) instrumentation and protein extraction technologies are reshaping proteomics; however, whether improved analytical performance alters the biological information accessible from different sample preparation strategies remains unclear. Here, we performed a cross-platform evaluation usin...
Drosos Katsavelis, M. V. D. van der Hart, J. Wolters et al.· Journal of Proteome Research· 0 citations
This chapter presents a step-by-step pipeline for the statistical and computational analysis of such data, oriented and generalizable to any mass spectrometry-derived proteomic dataset, facilitating an end-to-end analysis from raw proteomic data to the biological interpretation.
Ismail Kirrout, N. Montes· Methods in molecular biology· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.