pp 1-10 | Cite as

Optimization for Peptide Sample Preparation for Urine Peptidomics

  • Tara K. Sigdel
  • Carrie D. Nicora
  • Wei-Jun Qian
  • Minnie M. Sarwal
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series

Abstract

Analysis of native or endogenous peptides in biofluids can provide valuable insight into disease mechanisms. Furthermore, the detected peptides may also have utility as potential biomarkers for noninvasive monitoring of human diseases. The noninvasive nature of urine collection and the abundance of peptides in the urine make analysis by high-throughput “peptidomics” methods an attractive approach for investigating the pathogenesis of renal disease. However, urine peptidomics methodologies can be problematic with regard to difficulties associated with sample preparation. The urine matrix can provide significant background interference in making the analytical measurements, in that it hampers both the identification of peptides and the depth of the peptidomics read when utilizing LC-MS-based peptidome analysis. We report on a novel adaptation of the standard solid-phase extraction (SPE) method to a modified SPE (mSPE) approach for improved peptide yield and analysis sensitivity with LC-MS-based peptidomics, in terms of time, cost, clogging of the LC-MS column, peptide yield, peptide quality, and number of peptides identified by each method. The mSPE method provides significantly improved efficiencies for the preparation of samples from urine. The mSPE method is found to be superior to the conventional, standard SPE method for urine peptide sample preparation when applying LC-MS peptidomics analysis, due to optimized sample cleanup that provides improved experimental inference from confidently identified peptides.

Keywords

Biomarker Biomarker discovery Peptidomics Proteomics Transplantation Urine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter is based on research performed as part of an American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA)-funded project under Award Number U0163594 (to P Heeger), from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The work was carried out by members of the Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation (CTOT) and Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation in Children (CTOT-C) consortia. The experimental work described herein was performed in the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), a US Department of Energy (DOE) national scientific user facility located at PNNL in Richland, Washington, and in the Sarwal Lab at Stanford University and California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute. PNNL is a multi-program national laboratory operated by Battelle Memorial Institute for the DOE under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.

References

  1. 1.
    Poste G (2011) Bring on the biomarkers. Nature 469(7329):156–157ADSCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pisitkun T, Johnstone R, Knepper MA (2006) Discovery of urinary biomarkers. Mol Cell Proteomics 5(10):1760–1771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sigdel TK, Gao X, Sarwal MM (2012) Protein and peptide biomarkers in organ transplantation. Biomark Med 6(3):259–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sigdel TK et al (2008) Optimizing protein recovery for urinary proteomics, a tool to monitor renal transplantation. Clin Transpl 22(5):617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sigdel TK, Lee S, Sarwal MM (2011) Profiling the proteome in renal transplantation. Proteomics Clin Appl 5(5–6):269–280CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sigdel TK, Sarwal MM (2012) Cell-free DNA as a measure of transplant injury. Clin Transpl 201–205Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sigdel TK et al (2013) A rapid noninvasive assay for the detection of renal transplant injury. Transplantation 96(1):97–101CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shimwell NJ et al (2013) Combined proteome and transcriptome analyses for the discovery of urinary biomarkers for urothelial carcinoma. Br J Cancer 108(9):1854–1861CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Theodorescu D et al (2008) Discovery and validation of urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Proteomics Clin Appl 2(4):556–570CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Albalat A, Mischak H, Mullen W (2011) Clinical application of urinary proteomics/peptidomics. Expert Rev Proteomics 8(5):615–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Machtejevas E et al (2009) Profiling of endogenous peptides by multidimensional liquid chromatography: on-line automated sample cleanup for biomarker discovery in human urine. J Sep Sci 32(13):2223–2232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schulz-Knappe P et al (2001) Peptidomics: the comprehensive analysis of peptides in complex biological mixtures. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 4(2):207–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cutillas PR et al (2003) Detection and analysis of urinary peptides by on-line liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry: application to patients with renal Fanconi syndrome. Clin Sci (Lond) 104(5):483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ling XB et al (2010) Integrative urinary peptidomics in renal transplantation identifies biomarkers for acute rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol 21(4):646–653CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wittke S et al (2005) Discovery of biomarkers in human urine and cerebrospinal fluid by capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry: towards new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Electrophoresis 26(7–8):1476–1487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaub S et al (2004) Urine protein profiling with surface-enhanced laser-desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Kidney Int 65(1):323–332MathSciNetCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sigdel TK, Klassen RB, Sarwal MM (2009) Interpreting the proteome and peptidome in transplantation. Adv Clin Chem 47:139–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sigdel TK, Sarwal MM (2011) Recent advances in biomarker discovery in solid organ transplant by proteomics. Expert Rev Proteomics 8(6):705–715CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ling XB et al (2010) Urine peptidomics for clinical biomarker discovery. Adv Clin Chem 51:181–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hennion MC (1999) Solid-phase extraction: method development, sorbents, and coupling with liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 856(1–2):3–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kelly RT et al (2006) Chemically etched open tubular and monolithic emitters for nanoelectrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 78(22):7796–7801CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu X et al (2012) Protein identification using top-down. Mol Cell Proteomics 11(6):M111 008524CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qian WJ et al (2005) Probability-based evaluation of peptide and protein identifications from tandem mass spectrometry and SEQUEST analysis: the human proteome. J Proteome Res 4(1):53–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tara K. Sigdel
    • 1
  • Carrie D. Nicora
    • 2
  • Wei-Jun Qian
    • 2
  • Minnie M. Sarwal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Biological Sciences DivisionPacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations