• No results found

Profiling the tumor microenvironment proteome in prostate cancer using laser capture microdissection coupled to LC–MS—A technical report

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Profiling the tumor microenvironment proteome in prostate cancer using laser capture microdissection coupled to LC–MS—A technical report"

Copied!
5
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Pro

filing

the

tumor

microenvironment

proteome

in

prostate

cancer

using

laser

capture

microdissection

coupled

to

LC

–MS—A

technical

report

L.

Staunton

a

,

C.

Tonry

a

,

R.

Lis

c

,

S.

Finn

b

,

J.

O

’Leary

b

,

M.

Loda

c

,

M.

Bowden

c

,

S.R.

Pennington

a,

*

a

ConwayInstitute,UniversityCollegeDublin,Belfield,Dublin4,Ireland

b

StJames’sHospital,James’sSt.,Dublin8,Ireland

c

CenterforMolecularOncologicPathology,Dana-FarberCancerInstitute,450BrooklineAve.,Boston,MA,USA

ARTICLE INFO Articlehistory: Received9March2015

Receivedinrevisedform3November2015 Accepted9November2015

Availableonline29December2015 Keywords:

Lasercapturemicrodissection Label-freeLC–MS/

MS

ABSTRACT

Lasercapturemicrodissection(LCM)allowsmicroscopicprocurementofspecificcelltypesfromtissue sections.Here,wepresentanoptimizedworkflowforcouplingLCMtoLC–MS/MSincluding:sectioning of tissue,a standard LCM workflow, proteindigestion and advancedLC–MS/MS.Soluble proteins extractedfrombenignepithelialcells,theirassociatedstroma,tumorepithelialcellsandtheirassociated stromalcellsfromasinglepatienttissuesampleweredigestedandprofiledusingadvancedLC–MS/MS. The correlationbetweentechnicalreplicateswas R2=0.99witha mean%CV of 9.55%8.73. The

correlationbetweensamplereplicateswasR2=0.97withamean%CVof13.83%10.17.Thisrepresentsa

robust,systematicapproachforprofilingofthetumormicroenvironmentusingLCMcoupledtolabel-free LC–MS/MS.

ã2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.onbehalfofEuropeanProteomicsAssociation(EuPA).This isanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/

4.0/).

1.Introduction

A workflow using laser capture microdissection (LCM) that wouldallowforbothtargetedandunbiasedproteomicprofilingof specifictargetcellsintissue(thatmayalsoinclude,forexample, immuno-MRM)couldbeinvaluabletoseveralexperimentaland clinical fields. Since its establishment, LCM has predominantly beencoupledwithgenomicandtranscriptomicanalysisfor large-scale studies, whereas proteomic analysis has largely lagged behindinthisareaduetothelimitedamountofsampleroutinely acquiredusingLCM.Today,whilesomemaystillarguethatLCMis toochallengingandlaborintensivefortheresultinglowprotein yields, the sensitivity of mass spectrometers has increased exponentially in thelast number of years allowinganalysis of scarceproteinsamplesandevensinglecellanalysis[1]aswellas globalproteomemapping[2].Thereforeit isnowreasonableto

performlarge-scaleLCMusinglimitedsampleamountsforglobal proteome analysis to complement those that are routinely performed using genomics and transcriptomic technologies. Several laboratorieshavestudieddifferential proteinexpression inmicrodissectedtumortissuespecimensinanefforttodiscover novel tumor markers [3–5]. However, the semi-quantitative approaches usedinthesestudiesmayhavelimitedthenumber ofpotentialmarkersidentifiedaswellasthereliabilityofprotein quantification. In order to minimize technical variations and improvereliabilityofproteinquantification,avarietyof sophisti-catedstableisotopelabelingtechniqueshavebeendevelopedfor MS-based proteomics including chemical, metabolic, and enzy-matic labeling techniques. Isotope-coded affinity tags (ICAT), isobarictagsforrelativeandabsolutequantification(iTRAQ)and O18labelingcoupledwithmassspectrometryprovideameansof

post-harvestproteinlabelingfor proteinquantificationwhereby relativeproteinexpressionlevelsaredeterminedbytheratioofthe ionintensitiesoftheisotopicallylabeledpeptidepairsandhave successfullybeenappliedtoLCMmaterial[6–10].However,such labeling strategies require a relativelylarge amountof sample (100

m

g),whichrequiresenormousamountsofsectionedtissuefor LCMnottomentionthevastamountofLCMtime.Inadditionsuch strategies require extensive sample handlingand manipulation

Abbreviations:LCM,Lasercapturemicrodissection;LC–MS/MS,Liquid chroma-tographytandemmassspectrometry.

* Corresponingauthorat:UCDConwayInstituteofBiomolecularandBiomedical Research,School ofMedicine andMedical Science,UniversityCollege Dublin, Belfield,Dublin4,Ireland.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](S.R.Pennington).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euprot.2015.11.001

2212-9685/ã2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.onbehalfofEuropeanProteomicsAssociation(EuPA).ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

EuPA

Open

Proteomics

(2)

thatcan increase sample lossand contamination. Similarly,for label-free approaches in particular where peptide abundance information is critical for comparative proteomeanalysis, it is imperativethat samplehandlingandmanipulationbekepttoa minimum.Moreover,whiletheseeffortsdemonstratesignificant promise,theirscaleismodestandundertakinglargerscaleanalysis of individual patient tissue samples remains a formidable challenge[11].

Thispaperdescribesarobustsystematicapproachtocoupling LCMwithadvancedLC–MS/MSusingatelepathologyapproachfor theproteomicprofilingofthetumormicroenvironment(Fig.1). LCMrequiresaccurateidentificationofthecellstobetargetedand hencethepathologisthasacentralroleinLCM-basedexperiments. Assuch,thelimitingfactorinLCMisgenerallytheavailabilityofan expert pathologist to guide the tissue micro-dissection. The telepathologyapproach ensures that pathological evaluation is centraltotheidentificationandannotationofthecorrecttarget cellsfordownstreamproteomicanalysisaswellasrecordingany morphologicalchangesassequentialsectionsarecutthroughthe tissue(Fig.1).Theuseofshort-range separationallows forthe concentrationoflowproteinquantitiesintoasinglegelplugfor digestion, helps minimize protein loss by minimal sample handling and manipulation and facilitates the removal of SDS forsubsequentMSanalysis.

In order toestablishtheeffects of proteinconcentrationfor sufficient proteinidentifications, increasingproteinyields were concentratedusingshortrangeSDS-PAGEgelelectrophoresisand subjectedtoLC–MS/MS.Fig. 2 shows theseparation of 0.5

m

g-15

m

gofcrudeprostatetissueproteinlysateseparatedbasedon molecularweightusinga6%SDS-PAGEgel(Fig.2A)followedby

CoomassieBluestaining.AsshownbythegraphinFig.2B,shorter separation resultedin nosignificant increasein the numberof proteins identified from 2

m

g as to 4

m

g. Furthermore, loading greaterthan2

m

grunstheriskofcausingblockagesinthecolumn. Therefore,it ispreferable, andindeedfeasible,toaimtoobtain goodproteinidentificationswithonly2

m

gtotalprotein.Inorder todemonstrate thefeasibility of the approach LCM analysis of discrete regionswithinprostatetissue was conducted.ForLCM 12tissue sectionsfromasinglepatient specimenwereusedin order to harvest benign epithelium, its associated stroma and tumorepitheliumanditsassociatedstromausingoursystematic workflow. Each step upstream and downstream of the LCM procedure, from tissue preservation to the planning of LCM sessions,iscrucialtoensureaccuratecellpopulationaccrual.Using digital annotation software with a rigorousannotation system allowsforpre-plannedLCMsessionsaswellasreal-timeviewing ofannotatedimagesensuringthatthecorrectcells(andregions) are acquired for downstream analysis. For this reason the “telepathology”approachwaschosen;wherebytop,middleand tail sections were brought forward for pathological review as showninFig.1,thusensuringdocumentationofchangesintissue morphologyasthetissuewassectionedthrough,andalsoallowing digitalpathologicalannotationthroughSpectrumsoftware.Online viewingofannotatedslides allowsplanningofLCMsessions as wellasrealtimeviewingofannotatedimageswhileperforming LCM.

Theoverallaimofthisworkwastoassesstheoptimsed LCM-proteomicsworkflowfortheproteomicprofilingoflasercaptured microdissectedmaterial.Toachievethis,threetechnicalreplicates andfoursamplereplicateswereprofiledusinglabel-freenLC–MS/

Fig.1.SystematicworkflowforthecouplingofLCMtoadvancedLC–MS.Fig.1(A)showsaschematicillustrationoftheoptimizedworkflowfromsampleselectionand pathologyreview,usingannotatedimagesforcorrectcellularaccrualtoproteomicprofilingusingshortrangeSDS-PAGEandLC–MS.Fig.1B,CandDillustratethe telapathologyapproachimplementedaspartoftheoptimizedworkflow.Fig.1(C)showsserialH&Estainedsectionstakenfromapatientsample.PanelAshowsthefirstH&E sectiontakenattheDanaFaberandpostedtoUCD.PanelBshowsthesixthH&EcutsectiontakenatSt.James’Hospital.PanelCandDshowtheeleventhandsixteenth sections,respectively.Fig.1(D)depictstheLCMoftumorepitheliumandassociatedstromafromonecutsection.Theannotatedcresylviolet-stainedsectionisshowninD(i), beforeLCMisshowninD(ii),tumorepithelialcellsafterLCMareshowninD(iii)andassociatedstromaareshowninD(iv).LasercapturedtumorepithelialcellsareshowninD (v)andcapturedassociatedstromaareshowninD(vi).

(3)

MSalongsidemicrodissectedsamples.Sampleswerenormalized by the densitometry of the Coomassie-stained concentrated proteinbandspriortotrypticdigestion,Technicalreplicateswere analysedatthestart,middleandendofthelabel-freeexperiment and samplereplicates were preparedindividuallyand analysed throughout the experiment. The current high resolution MS instrumentation allows accurate and in depth analysis of the proteome,wherecarefulexperimentaldesignaswellasattention todetailateverystagefromsamplepreparation,proteindigestion andmassspectrometricanalysisplaysaroleinthetotalnumberof proteinsidentifiedreproduciblyandaccuratelyduringlabel-free proteomicprofiling. In totalover 2000 proteinswereidentified fromLCMmaterial(FDR<1%).Technicalreplicates(n=3)showed anaveragePearsoncorrelationof0.99%intheproteinsidentified (Fig. 3B). Moreover sample replicate (n=4)correlation showed strongtechnicalreproducibilitywithanaveragePearson correla-tion of 0.97 (Fig. 3A). The technical and sample variance, as measured by % CVstandard deviation across three technical replicates and four sample replicates are plotted against their averageabundanceonthelog10scaleforallidentifiedpeptides (FDR>0.01%).Fig.3Cand3Drepresentsthe%CVversuspeptide abundancefor technicalandsample replicatesrespectively.The graphs show excellent reproducibility with % CV <15% clearly demonstrating the reproducibility of the methodology. This demonstrates the overall feasibility of proteomic profiling of limitedquantitiesofprotein,routinelyacquiredusingLCM,from multiple patientsamples. In conclusion, the rigorousapproach describedherewhichincludesatelepathologyapproachaswellas standardized protocols for protein digestion, MS experimental

designanddataacquisitionprovidesaplatformforreproducible proteinidentificationandquantificationoflasercaptured micro-dissectedmaterial.

2.Materialsandmethods 2.1.Tissuesamples

Tissue specimens were collected from patients who had consented to have clinical data collected prospectively and to provideallprostatetissueobtainedduringbiopsyandsurgery.A single prostate tissue specimen was obtained from the Irish Prostate Cancer ResearchConsortium Tissue Bank and selected baseduponpathologicalreview.Snapfrozentissuewasmounted onatissueholderwiththeassistanceofTissue-TekO.C.T(Sakura, SAK4583)andfreshfrozentissuesectionswerecutontoindividual glassslides;asingletissuesection(5

m

mthick)werestainedwith hematoxylinandeosin(HandE)forpathologicalreview. 2.1.1.ProteinpreparationandshortrangeSDS-PAGE

Forthepreparationofproteinextracts,thetissuespecimenwas ground,inthepresenceofliquidnitrogen,intoafinepowderusing pestleandmortar.Proteinpowderwassuspendedin1MLoflysis buffer (20mM Tris, 7M Urea, 2M Tiourea, 10mg/ml DTT). In addition, buffer was supplemented with a protease inhibitor cocktail (0.2mM pefabloc,1.4mMpepstatin, 0.15mM aprotinin, 0.3mME-64,1mMleupetin,0.5mMsoybeantrypsininhibitorand 1mMEDTA)toavoidproteolyticdegradationofproteins.Soluable middlelayerproteinswereextractedfollowingcentrifugationat

Fig.2.SDS-PAGEapproachforsampleconcentrationandproteinidentifications.Panel(A)showspolyacrylamidegel(6%)wasusedtoseparate0.5mg–15mgofcrudeprostate lysate.Panel(B)representsbarchartoftotalproteindigestedascomparedtonumberofproteinsidentifiedusingLC–MS.

(4)

4C for 20minat 20,000g. The resultingproteinextract was placedinLo-Bind0.5mltubes (Sigma,Z666491)forsubsequent short range SDS-PAGE on 6% polyacrylamide gels [12] and electrophoresis was performed at 80V for 20min or until the trackingdyefullyenteredthetopoftheresolvinggel.

2.1.2.ProteindigestionandLC–MS/MS

Concentratedproteinbandswereexcised,washedanddigested according to an optimized method [13]. Trypsin-generated peptidesweredried by vacuum centrifugationand the peptide fractionswereresuspendedandpreparedforLC–MS/MSanalysis usingC18StagetipsaccordingtoRappsilberetal.[14].Digested sampleswereanalysed onaThermoScientificQ-Exactivemass spectrometer coupled to a Dionex Ultimate 3000 (RSLCnano) chromatographysystem.EachsamplewasloadedontoaBiobasic PicotipEmitter(120mmlength,75

m

mID)columnpackedwith Reprocil Pur C18 (1.9

m

m) reverse phase media and peptides separatedbyanincreasingacetonitrilegradientover120minata flowrateof250nL/minusingbufferA(97%H2O,2.5%acetonitrile,

0.5%acetic acid)and buffer B(97% acetonitrile,2.5% H2O,0.5%

acetic acid). From 0–16min the sample was loaded on tothe columnat500nl/min,from16to17minbufferBincreasedfrom 1to2%andtheflowratedecreasedfrom500to250nl/min,from 17to123minbufferBincreasedfrom2to27%ataflowrateof 250nl/min.From123–124minbufferBincreasedfrom27to90% andtheflowrateincreasedfrom250to500nl/min.From124to 130minbufferBremainedat90%andaflowrateof500nl/min. From130to131minbufferBdecreasedfrom90to1%ataflowrate of500nl/min.From131to132minbufferBremainedat1%ata flowrateof500nl/min.Themassspectrometerwasoperatedin positiveionmodewithacapillarytemperatureof220C,andwith

apotentialof2300Vappliedtothefrit.Alldatawasacquiredwith

the mass spectrometer operating in automatic data dependent switchingmode.Ahighresolution(70,000)MSscan(300–1600m/ z)wasperformedtoselectthe12mostintenseionspriortoMS/MS analysisusingHCD.Rawdatawasdenovosequencedandsearched against the Homo Sapiens subset of the Uniprot database (2014_11version)usingthesearchenginePEAKSStudio6(version 6)withthefollowingparametersapplied:enzyme:trypsin,upto twomissedcleavages,fixedmodifications:carbimidomethylated cysteine,variablemodifications:oxidationmethionine,precursor iontolerance:10ppm,productiontolerance:0.3Daandmaximum variableposttranslationalmodificationsperpeptide:3withafalse discovery rate (FDR) of 1%, averagelocal confidence(ALC) of 65%,a totallocalconfidenceof(TLC)of6,andpeptidescore ( 10lgP)of15.Subsequently,therawdataflieswereprocessed throughMaxQuant(V.1.2.7.4)softwarewiththesameparameter settingsasPeaksStudio6andincluding:peptideandproteinfalse discoverrateweresetto0.1%,uniqueandrazorpeptideswereset at1forproteinidentifications.TheLabelfreeQuantification(LFQ) valuesweregeneratedwithaminimumof2peptidesrequiredper protein.

Conflictofinterest

Theauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenoconflictsofinterestto report.

Acknowledgements

Funding is acknowledged from the Health Research Board (HRB) (HRA_POR/2011/125).Mass spectrometry technical assis-tancefromMr.KieranWynneoftheMassSpectrometryResource, UCDConwayInstituteisacknowledged.Theauthorswishtothank

Fig.3.Technicalandsamplereproducibilityofproteinidentificationsandpeptideabundancebylabel-freeLC–MS.Pearsoncorrelationplotofproteinidentificationsfor sample(A)and(B)technicalreplicates.Varianceasmeasuredby%CVstandarddeviationacrossfoursamplereplicates(C)andthreetechnicalreplicates(D),areplotted againsttheiraveragepeptideabundanceonthelog10scale.

(5)

thePathologicalSocietyofGreatBritainandIrelandforavisiting fellowshipawarded toLisa Staunton. Acknowledgementis also giventoProf.LanceLiottaandhisresearchteamintheDanarFaber whoprovidedannotatedtissuesectionsforthisstudy.TheUCD ConwayInstituteandtheProteomeResearchCentreisfundedby theprogramforresearchinThirdLevelInstitutions,as adminis-teredbytheHigherEducation AuthorityofIreland.Wewish to thanktheIrishProstateCancerResearchConsortiumforaccessto samplesusedinmethodoptimization.

References

[1]L.F.Waanders,K.Chwalek,M.Monetti,C.Kumar,E.Lammert,M.Mann, Quantitativeproteomicanalysisofsinglepancreaticislets,PNAS106 (November(45))(2009)18902–18907[cited2013Aug12].

[2]M.-S.Kim,S.M.Pinto,D.Getnet,R.S.Nirujogi,S.S.Manda,R.Chaerkady,etal.,A draftmapofthehumanproteome,Nature509(May(7502))(2014)575–581 [cited2014Jul9].

[3]D.Thakur,T.Rejtar,D.Wang,J.Bones,S.Cha,B.Clodfelder-Miller,etal., Microproteomicanalysisof10,000lasercapturedmicrodissectedbreast tumorcellsusingshort-rangesodiumdodecylsulfate-polyacrylamidegel electrophoresisandporouslayeropentubularliquidchromatographytandem massspectrometry,J.Chromatogr.AElsevierB.V.1218(November(45))(2011) 8168–8174[cited2013Jul4].

[4]L.N.Lili,L.V.Matyunina,L.D.Walker,B.B.Benigno,J.F.McDonald,Molecular profilingpredictstheexistenceoftwofunctionallydistinctclassesofovarian cancerstroma,Biomed.Res.Int.2013(January)(2013)846387.

[5]M.Hosako,T.Muto,Y.Nakamura,K.Tsuta,N.Tochigi,H.Tsuda,etal.,Proteomic studyofmalignantpleuralmesotheliomabylasermicrodissectionand two-dimensionaldifferencegelelectrophoresisidentifiedcathepsinDasanovel candidateforadifferentialdiagnosisbiomarker,J.ProteomicsElsevierB.V.75 (January(3))(2012)833–844[cited2013 Jul3].

[6]C.Li,Accuratequalitativeandquantitativeproteomicanalysisofclinical hepatocellularcarcinomausinglasercapturemicrodissectioncoupledwith isotope-codedaffinitytagandtwo-dimensionalliquidchromatographymass spectrometry,Mol.Cell.Proteomics3(January(4))(2004)399–409[cited2013 Jul3].

[7]Y.Mu,Y.Chen,G.Zhang,X.Zhan,Y.Li,T.Liu,etal.,Identificationofstromal differentiallyexpressedproteinsinthecoloncarcinomabyquantitative proteomics,Electrophoresis34(2013)1679–1692.

[8]G.-Q.Zeng,P.-F.Zhang,X.Deng,F.-L.Yu,C.Li,Y.Xu,etal.,Identificationof candidatebiomarkersforearlydetectionofhumanlungsquamouscellcancer byquantitativeproteomics,Mol.Cell.Proteomics11(June(6))(2012) [cited 2013Sep29]M111.013946.

[9]X.Yan,C.Lan-Qin,J.Long-Yu,C.Zhu-chu,Z.Gu-qing,T.Can-e,etal., Quantitativeproteomicstudyofhumanlungsquamouscarcinomaandnormal bronchialepithelialacquiredbylasercapturemicrodissection,J.Biomed. Biotechnol.2012(2012)1–12[cited2013Jul3].

[10]Z.Zhang,M.Li,G.Zhang,P.Fang,H.Yao,Z.Xiao,etal.,Identificationofhuman gastriccarcinomabiomarkersbydifferentialproteinexpressionanalysisusing 18OlabelingandnanoLC–MS/MScoupledwithlasercapturemicrodissection, Med.Oncol.27(June(2))(2010)296–303[cited2013Sep29].

[11]N.A.Kulak,G.Pichler,I.Paron,N.Nagaraj,M.Mann,Minimalencapsulated proteomic-sampleprocessingappliedtocopy-numberestimationin eukaryoticcells,Nat.Methods11(March(3))(2014)319–324[cited2014Mar 26].

[12]LAEMMLIUK,Cleavageofstructuralproteinsduringtheassemblyofthehead ofbacteriophaget4,Nature227(August(5259))(1970)680–685.

[13]J.V.Olsen,M.Mann,A.Shevchenko,H.Tomas,J.Havlis,In-geldigestionfor massspectrometriccharacterizationofproteinsandproteomes,Nat.Protoc.1 (6)(2007)2856–2860.

[14]J.Rappsilber,Y.Ishihama,M.Mann,Stopandgoextractiontipsfor matrix-assistedlaserdesorption/ionization,nanoelectrospray,andLC/MSsample pretreatmentinproteomics,Anal.Chem.75(February(3))(2003)663–670 [cited2014Nov28].

References

Related documents