Lin Andy, Merkley Eric D, Clowers Brian H, Hutchison Janine R, Kreuzer Helen W
Signatures Sciences & Technology Division, National Security Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352, United States.
Signatures Sciences & Technology Division, National Security Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352, United States; Department of Chemistry, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, United States.
J Microbiol Methods. 2015 May;112:3-10. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.01.015. Epub 2015 Jan 22.
Inactivation of pathogenic microbial samples is often necessary for the protection of researchers and to comply with local and federal regulations. By its nature, biological inactivation causes changes to microbial samples, potentially affecting observed experimental results. While inactivation-induced damage to materials such as DNA has been evaluated, the effect of various inactivation strategies on proteomic data, to our knowledge, has not been discussed. To this end, we inactivated samples of Yersinia pestis and Escherichia coli by autoclave, ethanol, or irradiation treatment to determine how inactivation changes liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry data quality as well as apparent protein content of cells. Proteomic datasets obtained from aliquots of samples inactivated by different methods were highly similar, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from 0.822 to 0.985 and 0.816 to 0.985 for E. coli and Y. pestis, respectively, suggesting that inactivation had only slight impacts on the set of proteins identified. In addition, spectral quality metrics such as distributions of various database search algorithm scores remained constant across inactivation methods, indicating that inactivation does not appreciably degrade spectral quality. Though overall changes resulting from inactivation were small, there were detectable trends. For example, one-sided Fischer exact tests determined that periplasmic proteins decrease in observed abundance after sample inactivation by autoclaving (α=1.71×10(-2) for E. coli, α=4.97×10(-4) for Y. pestis) and irradiation (α=9.43×10(-7) for E. coli, α=1.21×10(-5) for Y. pestis) when compared to controls that were not inactivated. Based on our data, if sample inactivation is necessary, we recommend inactivation with ethanol treatment with secondary preference given to irradiation.
为保护研究人员并遵守地方和联邦法规,对致病性微生物样本进行灭活处理通常是必要的。就其本质而言,生物灭活会导致微生物样本发生变化,可能影响观察到的实验结果。虽然已经评估了灭活对DNA等材料的损伤,但据我们所知,尚未讨论过各种灭活策略对蛋白质组学数据的影响。为此,我们通过高压灭菌、乙醇或辐照处理对鼠疫耶尔森菌和大肠杆菌样本进行灭活,以确定灭活如何改变液相色谱 - 串联质谱数据质量以及细胞的表观蛋白质含量。从通过不同方法灭活的样本等分试样中获得的蛋白质组数据集高度相似,大肠杆菌和鼠疫耶尔森菌的皮尔逊相关系数分别为0.822至0.985和0.816至0.985,这表明灭活对所鉴定的蛋白质组只有轻微影响。此外,各种数据库搜索算法得分的分布等光谱质量指标在不同灭活方法中保持不变,表明灭活不会明显降低光谱质量。尽管灭活导致的总体变化很小,但仍有可检测到的趋势。例如,单侧费舍尔精确检验确定,与未灭活的对照相比,高压灭菌(大肠杆菌α = 1.71×10⁻²,鼠疫耶尔森菌α = 4.97×10⁻⁴)和辐照(大肠杆菌α = 9.43×10⁻⁷,鼠疫耶尔森菌α = 1.21×10⁻⁵)灭活样本后,周质蛋白的观察丰度降低。根据我们的数据,如果有必要对样本进行灭活,我们建议采用乙醇处理进行灭活,其次是辐照处理。