Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input Amount

With the rapid development of mass spectrometry technology, it has been widely used in proteomic analysis of trace protein samples. To date, the effectiveness of filter-aided sample preparation (FASP) and in-stage tip (iST) protocols in microprotein sample repreparation has not been thoroughly inves...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ao LU, Huan-yue LIAO, Tian-tian CHU, Yang ZHAO, You JIANG, Zi-hong YE, Bo MENG
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Editorial Board of Journal of Chinese Mass Spectrometry Society 2025-05-01
Series:Zhipu Xuebao
Subjects:
Online Access:https://zpxb.xml-journal.net/article/doi/10.7538/zpxb.2024.0166
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849326305716207616
author Ao LU
Huan-yue LIAO
Tian-tian CHU
Yang ZHAO
You JIANG
Zi-hong YE
Bo MENG
author_facet Ao LU
Huan-yue LIAO
Tian-tian CHU
Yang ZHAO
You JIANG
Zi-hong YE
Bo MENG
author_sort Ao LU
collection DOAJ
description With the rapid development of mass spectrometry technology, it has been widely used in proteomic analysis of trace protein samples. To date, the effectiveness of filter-aided sample preparation (FASP) and in-stage tip (iST) protocols in microprotein sample repreparation has not been thoroughly investigated. Although a number of researches have been performed to compare the capacity of the two enzyme digestion protocols for identifying the proteins, no studies have been conducted when the protein input is lower than 1 μg, and the depth of analysis is shallow in terms of subsequent data analysis. In the present work, the optimal protein inputs of the two enzyme digestion schemes for 0.2-10 μg microprotein samples were studied, and the FASP and iST enzyme digestion protocols under the same protein input amount were compared. This study also systematically evaluated the two enzyme digestion protocols in terms of the numbers of identified proteins and peptides, the coverage of amino acid sequences, the frequency of identification, the coefficient of variation (CV), and the linear correlation within the groups of experiment. For iST, when the protein input was 5 μg, the number of identified proteins reached the highest value. For FASP, the number of identified proteins increased with increase in the amount of protein input, while the magnitude of the increase decreased after the protein input reaches to 5 μg. Further, the stability of each protocol of each group was evaluated from three aspects, including the number of identified proteins with amino acid sequence coverage of no less than 20%, 3 times in the triplicate samples, and a coefficient of variation of less than 5%. When the protein input was 5 μg, the number of proteins identified by iST in the three stability assays was maximum, meaning the stability reached to the best. When the protein input increased from 0.2 to 10 μg, the number of proteins identified in the three stability assays of FASP gradually increased with increase in protein inputs, while the magnitude of the increase decreased when the protein input was larger than 5 μg, and the stability of the protocol tended to the best. Under the same protein input, when the protein input amount was no more than 1 μg, the iST digestion protocol was better than FASP in terms of the number of proteins identified and the stability of the analysis procedure. When the protein input was more than 1 μg, the result was opposite. In summary, by comparing the numbers of proteins identified by iST and FASP with the protein input ranging from 0.2 to 10 μg, the FASP digestion protocol leads to identify more proteins with better stability, and gene ontology (GO) analysis can provide richer biological information.
format Article
id doaj-art-ca09a290844243d9a0ed5403c0806c96
institution Kabale University
issn 1004-2997
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher Editorial Board of Journal of Chinese Mass Spectrometry Society
record_format Article
series Zhipu Xuebao
spelling doaj-art-ca09a290844243d9a0ed5403c0806c962025-08-20T03:48:10ZengEditorial Board of Journal of Chinese Mass Spectrometry SocietyZhipu Xuebao1004-29972025-05-0146329230010.7538/zpxb.2024.01662024-166-d4Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input AmountAo LU0Huan-yue LIAO1Tian-tian CHU2Yang ZHAO3You JIANG4Zi-hong YE5Bo MENG6Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Biometrology and Inspection & Quarantine, College of Life Sciences, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, ChinaTechnology Innovation Center of Mass Spectrometry for State Market Regulation, Center for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing 100029, ChinaZhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Biometrology and Inspection & Quarantine, College of Life Sciences, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, ChinaTechnology Innovation Center of Mass Spectrometry for State Market Regulation, Center for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing 100029, ChinaTechnology Innovation Center of Mass Spectrometry for State Market Regulation, Center for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing 100029, ChinaZhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Biometrology and Inspection & Quarantine, College of Life Sciences, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, ChinaTechnology Innovation Center of Mass Spectrometry for State Market Regulation, Center for Advanced Measurement Science, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing 100029, ChinaWith the rapid development of mass spectrometry technology, it has been widely used in proteomic analysis of trace protein samples. To date, the effectiveness of filter-aided sample preparation (FASP) and in-stage tip (iST) protocols in microprotein sample repreparation has not been thoroughly investigated. Although a number of researches have been performed to compare the capacity of the two enzyme digestion protocols for identifying the proteins, no studies have been conducted when the protein input is lower than 1 μg, and the depth of analysis is shallow in terms of subsequent data analysis. In the present work, the optimal protein inputs of the two enzyme digestion schemes for 0.2-10 μg microprotein samples were studied, and the FASP and iST enzyme digestion protocols under the same protein input amount were compared. This study also systematically evaluated the two enzyme digestion protocols in terms of the numbers of identified proteins and peptides, the coverage of amino acid sequences, the frequency of identification, the coefficient of variation (CV), and the linear correlation within the groups of experiment. For iST, when the protein input was 5 μg, the number of identified proteins reached the highest value. For FASP, the number of identified proteins increased with increase in the amount of protein input, while the magnitude of the increase decreased after the protein input reaches to 5 μg. Further, the stability of each protocol of each group was evaluated from three aspects, including the number of identified proteins with amino acid sequence coverage of no less than 20%, 3 times in the triplicate samples, and a coefficient of variation of less than 5%. When the protein input was 5 μg, the number of proteins identified by iST in the three stability assays was maximum, meaning the stability reached to the best. When the protein input increased from 0.2 to 10 μg, the number of proteins identified in the three stability assays of FASP gradually increased with increase in protein inputs, while the magnitude of the increase decreased when the protein input was larger than 5 μg, and the stability of the protocol tended to the best. Under the same protein input, when the protein input amount was no more than 1 μg, the iST digestion protocol was better than FASP in terms of the number of proteins identified and the stability of the analysis procedure. When the protein input was more than 1 μg, the result was opposite. In summary, by comparing the numbers of proteins identified by iST and FASP with the protein input ranging from 0.2 to 10 μg, the FASP digestion protocol leads to identify more proteins with better stability, and gene ontology (GO) analysis can provide richer biological information.https://zpxb.xml-journal.net/article/doi/10.7538/zpxb.2024.0166liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (lc-ms/ms)proteomicsfilter-aided sample preparation (fasp)in-stage tip (ist)
spellingShingle Ao LU
Huan-yue LIAO
Tian-tian CHU
Yang ZHAO
You JIANG
Zi-hong YE
Bo MENG
Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input Amount
Zhipu Xuebao
liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (lc-ms/ms)
proteomics
filter-aided sample preparation (fasp)
in-stage tip (ist)
title Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input Amount
title_full Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input Amount
title_fullStr Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input Amount
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input Amount
title_short Comparison of FASP and iST Enzymatic Digestion Strategies: Impact of Protein Input Amount
title_sort comparison of fasp and ist enzymatic digestion strategies impact of protein input amount
topic liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (lc-ms/ms)
proteomics
filter-aided sample preparation (fasp)
in-stage tip (ist)
url https://zpxb.xml-journal.net/article/doi/10.7538/zpxb.2024.0166
work_keys_str_mv AT aolu comparisonoffaspandistenzymaticdigestionstrategiesimpactofproteininputamount
AT huanyueliao comparisonoffaspandistenzymaticdigestionstrategiesimpactofproteininputamount
AT tiantianchu comparisonoffaspandistenzymaticdigestionstrategiesimpactofproteininputamount
AT yangzhao comparisonoffaspandistenzymaticdigestionstrategiesimpactofproteininputamount
AT youjiang comparisonoffaspandistenzymaticdigestionstrategiesimpactofproteininputamount
AT zihongye comparisonoffaspandistenzymaticdigestionstrategiesimpactofproteininputamount
AT bomeng comparisonoffaspandistenzymaticdigestionstrategiesimpactofproteininputamount