Secretome processing for proteomics: A methods comparison

Abstract

AbstractThe cancer cell secretome comprises a treasure‐trove for biomarkers since it reflects cross‐talk between tumor cells and their surrounding environment with high detectability in biofluids. In this study, we evaluated six secretome sample processing workflows coupled to single‐shot mass spectrometry: (1) Protein concentration by ultrafiltration with a molecular weight cut‐off (MWCO) filter and sample preparation through in‐gel digestion (IGD); (2) Acetone protein precipitation coupled to IGD; (3) MWCO filter‐based protein concentration followed by to in‐solution digestion (ISD); (4) Acetone protein precipitation coupled to ISD; (5) Direct ISD; (6) Secretome lyophilization and ISD. To this end, we assessed workflow triplicates in terms of total number of protein identifications, unique identifications, reproducibility of protein identification and quantification and detectability of small proteins with important functions in cancer biology such as cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors. Our findings revealed that acetone protein precipitation coupled to ISD outperformed the other methods in terms of the number of identified proteins (2246) and method reproducibility (correlation coefficient between replicates (r = 0.94, CV = 19%). Overall, especially small proteins such as those from the classes mentioned above were better identified using ISD workflows. Concluding, herein we report that secretome protein precipitation coupled to ISD is the method of choice for high‐throughput secretome proteomics via single shot nanoLC‐MS/MS.