ArticlemSystems2024
Benchmarking low- and high-throughput protein cleanup and digestion methods for human fecal metaproteomics.
Article in mSystems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbial Omics.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026Review
- The microbiologist's guide to metaproteomics.iMeta · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The application of fecal metaproteomics to large-scale studies of the gut microbiota requires high-throughput analysis and standardized experimental protocols. Although high-throughput protein cleanup and digestion methods are increasingly used in shotgun proteomics, no studies have yet critically compared such protocols using human fecal samples. In this study, human fecal protein extracts were processed using several different protocols based on three main approaches: filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), solid-phase-enhanced sample preparation (SP3), and suspension trapping (S-Trap). These protocols were applied in both low-throughput (i.e., microtube-based) and high-throughput (i.e., microplate-based) formats, and the final peptide mixtures were analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry. The FASP-based methods and the combination of SP3 with in-StageTips (iST) yielded the best results in terms of the number of peptides identified through a database search against gut microbiome and human sequences. The efficiency of protein digestion, the ability to preserve hydrophobic peptides and high molecular weight proteins, and the reproducibility of the methods were also evaluated for the different protocols. Other relevant variables, including interindividual variability of stool, duration of protocols, and total costs, were considered and discussed. In conclusion, the data presented here can significantly contribute to the optimization and standardization of sample preparation protocols in human fecal metaproteomics. Furthermore, the promising results obtained with the high-throughput methods are expected to encourage the development of automated workflows and their application to large-scale gut microbiome studies.IMPORTANCEFecal metaproteomics is an experimental approach that allows the investigation of gut microbial functions, which are involved in many different physiological and pathological processes. Standardization and automation of sample preparation protocols in fecal metaproteomics are essential for its application in large-scale studies. Here, we comparatively evaluated different methods, available also in a high-throughput format, enabling two key steps of the metaproteomics analytical workflow (namely, protein cleanup and digestion). The results of our study provide critical information that may be useful for the optimization of metaproteomics experimental pipelines and their implementation in laboratory automation systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.