Reproducible proteomics sample preparation for single FFPE tissue slices using acid-labile surfactant and direct trypsinization

• Published in: Clinical proteomics 2018-03, Vol.15 (1), p.11-11, Article 11
• Main Authors: Föll, Melanie Christine, Fahrner, Matthias, Oria, Victor Oginga, Kühs, Markus, Biniossek, Martin Lothar, Werner, Martin, Bronsert, Peter, Schilling, Oliver
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Archival tissue; Comparative analysis; FASP; FFPE; Formaldehyde; Label-free quantitation; Liquid chromatography; Mass spectrometry; Medical research; Proteins; Proteomics; Surface active agents
• ISSN: 1542-6416; 1559-0275
• DOI: 10.1186/s12014-018-9188-y

Proteomic analyses of clinical specimens often rely on human tissues preserved through formalin-fixation and paraffin embedding (FFPE). Minimal sample consumption is the key to preserve the integrity of pathological archives but also to deal with minimal invasive core biopsies. This has been achieved by using the acid-labile surfactant RapiGest in combination with a direct trypsinization (DTR) strategy. A critical comparison of the DTR protocol with the most commonly used filter aided sample preparation (FASP) protocol is lacking. Furthermore, it is unknown how common histological stainings influence the outcome of the DTR protocol. Four single consecutive murine kidney tissue specimens were prepared with the DTR approach or with the FASP protocol using both 10 and 30 k filter devices and analyzed by label-free, quantitative liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). We compared the different protocols in terms of proteome coverage, relative label-free quantitation, missed cleavages, physicochemical properties and gene ontology term annotations of the proteins. Additionally, we probed compatibility of the DTR protocol for the analysis of common used histological stainings, namely hematoxylin & eosin (H&E), hematoxylin and hemalaun. These were proteomically compared to an unstained control by analyzing four human tonsil FFPE tissue specimens per condition. On average, the DTR protocol identified 1841 ± 22 proteins in a single, non-fractionated LC-MS/MS analysis, whereas these numbers were 1857 ± 120 and 1970 ± 28 proteins for the FASP 10 and 30 k protocol. The DTR protocol showed 15% more missed cleavages, which did not adversely affect quantitation and intersample comparability. Hematoxylin or hemalaun staining did not adversely impact the performance of the DTR protocol. A minor perturbation was observed for H&E staining, decreasing overall protein identification by 13%. In essence, the DTR protocol can keep up with the FASP protocol in terms of qualitative and quantitative reproducibility and performed almost as well in terms of proteome coverage and missed cleavages. We highlight the suitability of the DTR protocol as a viable and straightforward alternative to the FASP protocol for proteomics-based clinical research.