Protein Aggregation Capture on Microparticles Enables Multipurpose Proteomics Sample Preparation*

Universal proteomics sample preparation is challenging because of the high heterogeneity of biological samples. Here we describe a novel mechanism that exploits the inherent instability of denatured proteins for nonspecific immobilization on microparticles by protein aggregation capture. To demonstrate the general applicability of this mechanism, we analyzed phosphoproteomes, tissue proteomes, and interaction proteomes as well as dilute secretomes. The findings present a practical, sensitive and cost-effective proteomics sample preparation method. Universal proteomics sample preparation is challenging because of the high heterogeneity of biological samples. Here we describe a novel mechanism that exploits the inherent instability of denatured proteins for nonspecific immobilization on microparticles by protein aggregation capture. To demonstrate the general applicability of this mechanism, we analyzed phosphoproteomes, tissue proteomes, and interaction proteomes as well as dilute secretomes. The findings present a practical, sensitive and cost-effective proteomics sample preparation method. Dedicated sample preparation for shotgun proteomics is essential for removing impurities and interfering species which may affect peptide chromatography, ionization during the electrospray process, and sequencing by mass spectrometers. To represent the in vivo state of the global proteome including membrane-bound proteins, it is of high importance to ensure complete lysis of cells and tissues before protease digestion. This typically requires strong detergents that are difficult to remove afterward, however crucial to avoid signal interference during MS analysis. Considerable developments have been made based on a variety of different biochemical principles which use filters, traps, or protein precipitation techniques which address different sample types (1.Wiśniewski J.R. Zougman A. Nagaraj N. Mann M. Universal sample preparation method for proteome analysis.Nat. Methods. 2009; 6: 259Crossref Scopus (5043) Google Scholar, 2.Shevchenko A. Tomas H. Havli J. Olsen J.V. Mann M. In-gel digestion for mass spectrometric characterization of proteins and proteomes.Nat. Protoc. 2007; 1: 2856-2860Crossref Scopus (3531) Google Scholar, 3.Zougman A. Selby P.J. Banks R.E. Suspension trapping (STrap) sample preparation method for bottom-up proteomics analysis.Proteomics. 2014; 14: 1000-1006Crossref Scopus (173) Google Scholar). However, a primary challenge remaining is the development of a universal sample preparation method that has the potential to scale across different sample amounts, which typically range from ng to mg of starting material. Moreover, such a method needs to be compatible with different lysis buffers, biological material (i.e. cell lines, tissues), robust, reproducible, cost effective, and perhaps above all; practical. Although several methods have been developed to individually address different proteomics sample preparation challenges, a simple solution spanning all sample types remains elusive. Here we report a mechanism, termed protein aggregation capture (PAC) 1, which uses the phenomenon of nonspecifically immobilizing precipitated and aggregated proteins on any type of sub-micron particles irrespective of their surface chemistry. We explore the fundamental process underlying this phenomenon behind methods such as SP3 and determine the optimal parameters leading to effective sample preparation for shotgun proteomics analysis by mass spectrometry of different sample types. Our developments demonstrate the potential for low cost, simple, robust and sensitive sample preparation procedures for proteomics analysis, which can be easily implemented in any setting with great potential for full automation. Chemicals were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Søborg, Denmark) unless otherwise specified. 1 μm diameter Sera-mag carboxyl magnetic beads (cas # 45152105050250 and cas # 65152105050250) were purchased from GE-Healthcare (Brøndby, Denmark). 0.5 μm diameter SIMAG-Sulfon (cas # 1202), SiMAG-Q (cas # 1206), and SiMAG-Octadecyl (cas # 1301) magnetic beads were all purchased from Chemicell GmbH (Berlin, Germany). 5–10 μm average diameter HILIC, TiO2, and Ti-IMAC magnetic beads were purchased from ReSyn Biosciences (Edenvale, Gauteng, South Africa). Carbonyl-iron powder with 5–9 μm diameter grain size was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (cas # 44890). Human bone osteosarcoma epithelial (U2OS) and human epithelial cervix carcinoma (HeLa) adherent cells were grown in DMEM media (Gibco, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts) supplemented with fetal bovine serum (Gibco) at 10% final. The media also contained penicillin (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 50 U/ml and streptomycin (Invitrogen) at 100 μg/ml. Cells were grown in a humidified incubator at 37 °C with 5% CO2. In all cases, cells were grown to 80–90% confluency before harvesting with different lysis buffers in Nunc petridishes (100 or 150 mm diameter). To generate stably expressing GFP-TTP cells under a doxycycline inducible promoter, ZFP36/TTP was gateway cloned into a pCDNA4/TO/GFP expression vector by gateway cloning (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and co-transfected with pcDNA6/TR (Thermo Fisher Scientific) into U2OS cells. Cells were selected with zeocin and blasticidin for 14 days, after which individual clones were picked and screened for GFP-TTP expression. For SILAC labeling, cells were cultured in media containing either l-arginine and l-lysine (Light), l-arginine 13C6 and l-lysine 2H4 (Medium) or l-arginine 13C6-15N4 and l-lysine 13C6-15N2 (Heavy; Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Tewksbury, Massachusetts). RAW264.7 macrophage cells were derived from Mus musculus and grown in 10% in DMEM media with 10% FBS in 150 mm diameter Nunc petridishes. The media was removed, and cells were washed with PBS before addition of phenol-red free DMEM media without serum, penicillin, and streptomycin. Cells were stimulated with lipopolysaccharids (LPS) with 1 μg/ml for 4 h. Four hundred microliters of the media was removed and processed for secretome analysis and filtered through 0.22 μm filter (Sartorius #16532) before further processing. Cells lysis as presented in this study was performed with either one of the three buffers: (1) 6 m guanidine hydrochloride in 100 mm tris hydrochloride (Life technologies, Carlsbad, California) at pH 8.5, (2) 1% SDS in 100 mm 100 mm Tris Hydrochloride (pH 8.5) or (3) 0.1% NP-40 in 1× phosphate buffered saline solution (pH 7.4) containing β-glycerol phosphate (50 mm), sodium orthovanadate (10 mm), and protease inhibitor mixture (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). In all cases, supernatant from adherent cell plates was removed and the cells were rinsed with ice cold 1× PBS before the addition of the lysis buffer. Guanidine hydrochloride buffer was pre-heated to 99 °C before the addition to the cell plates. After the addition of guanidine or SDS buffer, cells were manually collected and heated at 99 °C for 10 min followed by sonication using a probe to shear RNA and DNA. Proteins were immediately reduced and alkylated with the 10 mm tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP) and 11 mm 2-chloroacetamide (CAA) for samples lysed with guanidine hydrochloride or SDS lysis buffer before further processing. For cells lysed using 0.1% NP-40 buffer, 1 μl of benzonase (≥250U/ul) was added to the lysis solution for 1 h on ice. The lysis solution was centrifuged at 5000 × g for 10 min and the supernatant was transferred to a new tube. GFP-TTP immunoprecipitations were performed using GFP-Trap magnetic agarose beads (Chromotek, Martinsried, Germany) according to manufacturer's instructions. Cell lysis and immunoprecipitations were carried out using low salt EBC lysis buffer (150 mm NaCl; 50 mm TRIS pH 7.5; 1 mm EDTA; 0,5% NP-40) for 1 h followed by 5 washes with the same buffer. Proteins were eluted by boiling in 2% SDS, 10% glycerol, 5% 2-mercaptoethanol, 0.1 m Tris-HCl (pH 6.8). Aggregation was induced by the addition of acetonitrile (unless stated otherwise) and magnetic microparticles were added to solution followed by mixing to uniformly mix the bead solution. The solution was allowed to settle for 10 min and beads were separated using a magnet for 60 s. Magnetic microspheres were retained by magnet and the supernatant was removed by vacuum suction. In the case of analysis by protein gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), the supernatant was transferred to new tubes. Beads were washed using acetonitrile once followed by one wash with 70% ethanol. See extended methods for experiment specific protocols. Samples and washes were prepared for analysis by protein gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) by the addition of 4× LDS sample buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) to 1× final, and DTT (100 mm). Samples were heated for 10 min at 80 °C. For eluting bead bound protein aggregates, LDS buffer (containing DTT) was added to bead containing solutions and the mixture was heated for 10 min at 80 °C. Heated beads in LDS buffer were separated by magnet and the supernatant was analyzed by SDS-PAGE or transferred to a new tube and stored at −20 °C until SDS-PAGE analysis. Samples were loaded on NuPAGE 4–12% Bis-Tris protein gel (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and ran with 200 volts for 40 min. Gels were stained for 15 min using instant Blue (Expedeon, San Diego, California) and destained overnight with Milli-Q water and scanned on EPSON V750 PRO. Proteins were aggregated on microspheres and washed as described above. For on-bead digestion, 50 mm HEPES buffer (pH 8.5) was added to submerge microspheres. Proteins were reduced and alkylated with the 5 mm tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine (TCEP) and 5.5 mm 2-chloroacetamide (CAA) for 30 min if not treated immediately after lysis. Lys-c (Wako Chemicals) was added at ratio of 1:200 (to protein) and allowed to react for 1 h at 37 °C followed by the addition of trypsin at a ratio of 1:100 (unless specified otherwise). Trypsin digestion was allowed to occur overnight at 37 °C. Beads were separated by magnet and the supernatant was transferred to new tube and acidified. In-solution digestion with guanidine hydrochloride buffer was carried out under similar reduction and alkylation conditions. Lys-c was added to solution and allowed to react for 1 h at 37 °C. The concentration of guanidine hydrochloride concentration was reduced to >1 M before the addition of trypsin for overnight digestion. Solution was acidified by with 1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and centrifuged for 5 min at 5000 × g and the supernatant transferred to new tubes. Peptide mixtures were clarified with solid phase extraction. Briefly, hydrophobic C18 sep-pak (Waters Corporation, Taastrup, Denmark) were prepared by washing with acetonitrile and 0.1% TFA, followed by loading of the acidified peptide mixtures by gravity. Sep-paks were washed with 0.1% TFA and peptides were eluted using 50% Acetonitrile (0.05% TFA). Organic solvent was evaporated and peptides concentrated using a speedvac before MS analysis. We used skeletal muscle which were isolated for previously published study (See extended methods Schönke et al.). Frozen gastrocnemius muscles were crushed using mortar and pestle. Powdered muscle was homogenized using Ultra Turrax T8 homogenizer (IKA Labortechnik, Staufen im Breisgau, Germany) in 4% SDS buffer (100 mm Tris-HCl, pH 7.4). Protein lysates were boiled at 100 °C for 5 mins. Lysates were sonicated using a tip and centrifuged at 16,000 × g for 10 mins followed by reduction and alkylation as described above, the supernatant was then processed using FASP or PAC or frozen until further analysis. Urea powder was added to 400 μl of filtered cell culture supernatant for a final 2 m concentration, and pH for digestion adjusted with 40 μl Tris 1 m pH 8.5. FASP protocol was adapted from as previously described (1.Wiśniewski J.R. Zougman A. Nagaraj N. Mann M. Universal sample preparation method for proteome analysis.Nat. Methods. 2009; 6: 259Crossref Scopus (5043) Google Scholar). Samples were heated for 10 min at 56 °C and centrifuged (7000 × g, 10 min). Following centrifugation steps were performed applying the same conditions. Ultracel-30 membrane filters (#MRCF0R030, Millipore, Burlington, Massachusetts) were cleaned with 10% acetonitrile and 15% methanol, filters were centrifuged and equilibrated with 200 μl urea buffer (2 m, 0.1 m Tris, pH8.5), and centrifuged again. Samples were added into the filters and the filters were centrifuged and washed with urea buffer. was performed by 1 μl of 0.5 m in 100 μl urea buffer. The was and alkylation was performed by 1 μl of mm in 100 μl urea buffer for 30 min in the were centrifuged and 200 μl urea buffer was added before 4 μl of 0.5 in 40 μl urea buffer was added for at 37 °C with 4 μl of 0.5 trypsin was added for overnight digestion in the at 37 °C with were cleaned with and before the filter which was then 40 μl of water was added followed by The digestion was by the sample to pH with was performed have the same and as in the FASP sample Urea powder was added to 400 μl of filtered cell culture supernatant for a final 2 m concentration, and pH for digestion adjusted with 40 μl Tris 1 m was added and the were for 30 min. samples were with for min in the The digestion addition of during followed by the addition trypsin and overnight at The digestion was by the sample to pH with Samples were and concentrated using In-gel protein digestion and was performed as described and Olsen in extended cells were grown as described above. Cells were washed and serum without for 4 h followed by 10 min with FBS Cells were washed and lysed using guanidine hydrochloride buffer as described above. Protein concentration was using and trypsin digestion was carried out as described above. were clarified using as described above with the that the peptide mixture was not concentrated using a 5% was removed for peptide concentration using which was to 200 Ultra high was using Ti-IMAC magnetic beads with to the protocol extended containing solution were loaded C18 the were loaded and The were stored at 4 °C until and analysis by Samples were on a 15 μm with μm C18 beads Germany) using (Thermo Fisher were separated and eluted from the with of buffer 0.1% at a of samples were analyzed on a (Thermo Fisher Scientific) mass to for of and one from PAC were analyzed on a (Thermo Fisher Scientific) mass with similar The mass was in with method. mass spectrometric are with from were analyzed using and Mann Samples from human cell and were the human proteome with Samples from cell and tissue were the Mus musculus proteome with The protease was to with of to 2 with the for the analysis of protease digestion it was to were performed with of as a and protein were as of and were as for analysis of samples using of was to 5 for all analysis. of was to the of followed by for after mass mass was for peptide of was for all and peptides a of 40 be for of 1% was used for peptide and Proteins to be by of 2 peptides to be was used for the analysis of samples. of were by for all analysis was performed and in the further of and for in of protease were performed in for the digestion methods solution with different protease for in the analysis of 100 samples. from PAC digestion with and Trypsin at ratio was because of biological was used to the to the sample preparation For analysis presented in same protein was used to the to the sample preparation conditions. The protein was for analysis of digestion methods solution leading to different samples. sample was prepared solution or followed by of from sample after protease digestion. tissue protein was 6 for analysis of peptide and proteomics analysis FASP and was prepared and analyzed SILAC analysis of or was performed in by cells in and in 4 different cell culture plates a of different and to 4 samples from which were from GFP-Trap beads were into for either or PAC analysis. was used to protein and SILAC ratio across and extended et and et al.). analysis of RAW264.7 macrophage cells was performed in by the cells in 4 cell culture The supernatant from was prepared for proteomics analysis by in or PAC method. Our was based on a of and that to the mechanism of nonspecific on magnetic beads with carboxyl surface magnetic beads have been for sensitive proteomics sample preparation as to such as FASP with starting material J. proteome analysis using bead 2014; Scopus Google Scholar). The mechanism was to for the of and A. Scopus Google with the carboxyl surface and the method was termed of the such as pH have it M. J. J. of and for sample preparation in the low Scopus Google Scholar, the of the SP3 bead for Scopus Google Scholar, J. sample preparation for proteomics 14: Scopus Google Scholar). principles and under protein interaction to the carboxyl surface of the beads was to be induced by the addition of acetonitrile to the protein However, we that of proteins to the microspheres not be under with extended washing Proteins however be in buffers such as We protein immobilization be by aggregation of proteins on magnetic microspheres. To we treated protein lysates either by at proteins in their or induced aggregation by three different solvent 70% high for 5 or high salt m followed by the addition of magnetic carboxyl microspheres. of aggregated and proteins was under the three to that protein aggregation was essential to the underlying mechanism of protein capture the induced protein aggregation was using by the protein remaining in the We the of surface on protein immobilization and on protein aggregation irrespective of surface including containing hydrophobic C18 To out the of the magnetic of the microspheres leading to we protein aggregation on μm C18 hydrophobic which are typically used for and similar immobilization We further surface microspheres were essential for protein immobilization by protein aggregation on powder microparticles size 5–9 and aggregation in a similar However, because of the of powder water or solvent the was to be in low protein aggregation as the of protein containing solutions were not we the addition of beads and solvent and of protein aggregation capture on beads We protein aggregation on microspheres was a of surface by protein aggregation at low to a concentration of protein at Although low of beads were to proteins from solution we the of to be the bead to protein ratio was leading to of aggregated in solution solutions with low protein were to bead to protein for capture and that solutions with protein can on of however protein concentration of microparticles to capture aggregated the that surface of surface as a or to a immobilization of protein aggregates, which to a We the on trypsin digestion of proteins on carboxyl microparticles and it to a based digestion protocol for and protein digestion and mass Scopus Google Scholar). all samples by mass spectrometry we reduced of the methods at different and Trypsin findings the to proteomics sample preparation as typically one of the of the before MS analysis. previously by across different digestion of and based digestion methods for bottom-up Scopus Google that reduction in Trypsin and to to the ratio used in proteomics such as can the of proteins by their and interaction J.V. Mann M. in and in Scopus Google Scholar). is to proteomics methods that global analysis of in a robust, and sensitive We the analysis of protein is by the on-bead protein aggregation capture on serum stimulated cells. were by magnetic Ti-IMAC beads and the analyzed by in The demonstrate in the of peptide and peptides and were on average using protein aggregation followed by protease digestion with digestion. Moreover, high of for was the methods and in the was the as we for all we not a for the methods We the potential of using magnetic microparticles for proteomics analysis of and This can be challenging as it requires buffers for protein from and To aggregation on microparticles we used skeletal muscle tissue samples from Mus After and in 4% SDS lysis buffer, we protein and digestion by using either the sample preparation protocol or aggregation of proteins on magnetic microspheres with acid surface chemistry. peptide after digestion was using microspheres from starting material of mg by J.R. and sensitive protein and peptide for Scopus Google sample preparation with magnetic microspheres in a peptide mixture as were in the mass spectrometry analysis, leading to of proteins and peptides in a analysis Proteins in the cell and their is on the protein are of J. A. M. J. J. The a of the human Scopus Google Scholar). potential of magnetic microparticles is for the analysis of in with mass spectrometry is a for We a based methods such as SP3 for of to protocols. To we used a SILAC H. A. Mann M. by in cell as a simple and to expression 1: Scopus Google based for of or RNA protein average we 100 proteins eluted proteins were aggregated on beads surface based on MS analysis with a digestion with 5 we the for We of such as and which such as and The of in Scopus Google as well as potential novel which interaction with analysis of secretome for the of However, the analysis of secretome several as proteins are in low their in culture media are in and difficult M. H. A. a analysis of the of the cells 2007; Scopus Google Scholar). We to determine the applicability of microparticles for proteins in the of cell culture media To this we urea and filter based methods as previously Mann M. of the secretome of Scopus Google Scholar, J. Mann M. analysis of in skeletal muscle cells by a and 14: Scopus Google PAC on microparticles for described above high concentration of microspheres were to surface for immobilization of dilute aggregated Protein aggregation on microspheres the of proteins and peptides in the Although the low peptide with FASP protocol to the of protein the and FASP methods the peptide sample as by analysis previously described to proteins J. Mann M. analysis of in skeletal muscle cells by a and 14: Scopus Google we of the proteins have been previously as proteins through the signal or of proteins in 2009; Scopus Google Scholar). Proteins through the were at in the media This low such as and which were using by proteins on magnetic of the aggregation can of of proteins in the of cell culture We have described the protein aggregation capture mechanism behind based protein the mechanism of PAC in has to that methods for samples for analysis of such as phosphoproteomes, low and The of were low proteins aggregated were with Although the of were for using the PAC we in the using the methods This can be by the that phosphate are to protease digestion Olsen J.V. for 2014; Scopus Google Scholar, J. of digestion on 2014; Scopus Google Scholar). In the secretome media was with media before which the challenge of range of high of that can of proteins be by acid in with protein aggregation on beads M. J. of proteins for secretome analysis.Nat. Scopus Google Scholar). We demonstrate that PAC is from low to high starting of which has for cost, and The is for sequencing of peptides and be compatible with novel protein sequencing such as that use and sequencing of peptide mixtures J. J. of proteins in Scopus Google Scholar). The PAC if samples as that aggregation on such as can also with proteins if not We of this mechanism to further novel developments and developments use surface for peptide nonspecific aggregation at the protein mass spectrometric are with of peptides can be using the for the is We for and We to the for and the for and with protein aggregation capture.