Protein Stain Overview... Expert Reveiw - BiopHoretics

A Blue Dive: From 'Blue Fingers' to 'Blue Silver'

A Comparative Overview of Staining Methods for In-Gel Proteomics

Isabella Panfoli, Daniela Calzia, Laura Santucci, Silvia Ravera, Maurizio Bruschi, Giovanni Candiano

Expert Rev Proteomics. 2012;9(6):627-634. "Download"

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

Gel-based proteomics are the most useful method for protein separation, even when compared with gel-free proteomics. Proteomic analysis by 2D gel electrophoresis (2-DE) with immobilized pH gradients is in turn the best approach to large-scale protein-expression screening. Spots visualization is pivotal for protein identification by mass spectrometry. Commonly used staining methods with excellent mass spectrometry compatibility are coomassie brilliant blue (CBB) or fluorescent dyes. In this study, an implementation of 'blue silver' colloidal CBB staining, characterized by high sensitivity and immediate low background, is discussed. The sensitivity of classical, colloidal and 'blue silver' CBB staining methods was compared on monodimensional and 2-DE gels. The implementation of the 'blue silver' method performs better, provided the physical state of the micelles is respected. An example of a 2-DE of human urine treated with combinatorial peptide ligand libraries demonstrates that implemented 'blue silver' can evidence the complexity of the sample.

 

Introduction

As was foreseen, in-gel proteome analysis has continued to progress, exploiting its immense potential.[1] In particular, since the pioneering work by O'Farrell,[2] 2D electrophoresis (2-DE), based on the physical parameters isoelectric point (Ip) and molecular weight (Mr),[3,4] has been established as a mature technique for large-scale proteomic analysis and has challenged gel-free multidimensional protein separation technologies.[5] This is especially true since the advent of mass spectrometry (MS) and of databases that have facilitated the characterization of proteins.[6] The expression of thousands of proteins can be detected in a single 2-DE gel. 2-DE technology is extremely informative for the study of functional expression and post-translational modifications of protein isoforms.[7] Despite some limitations, mostly with some particularly hydrophobic proteins,[8] development of immobilized pH gradients[9–12] has rendered the technique fast, and so reliable as to separate proteins differing by a fraction of isoelectric point (pI). By contrast, in gel-free proteomic methods, which analyze peptides, information about Mr and pI is lost and quantitative analysis depends on stable isotope labeling.[13] The improvements in technologies for gel detection and mass analyzers over the last decade urges us to consider to what extent staining methods address the appropriate characteristics of sensitivity, quantitative attributes (detection limit, linear dynamic range) and compatibility with MS analyses.[14,15] Detection is a prerequisite to the identification of spots. It can be achieved through staining of proteins in a sample. In general terms, a staining reagent consists of an organic or inorganic chemical dissolved in an appropriate solution. The reversible or irreversible binding of the dye to the proteins precipitates or changes color or emits fluorescence, allowing detection of the protein under visible or ultraviolet light.[16] Staining methods based on diversified principles have been optimized and can be essentially divided into visible or invisible, and pre- or post-electrophoresis stains.[14]


Visible Staining Procedures

Coomassie Brilliant Blue

Coomassie brilliant blue (CBB) stain remains the preferred dye for quantitation in electrophoresis[1,16–18] owing to its ease of use, full MS compatibility and linearity over approximately one order of magnitude. Coomassie owes its name to a town in Ghana, where British troops won a battle in 1873. Some of us still remember being able to recognize each other as members of the first electrophoresis society in the early 1970s, thanks to the blue color of the tips of our fingers due to the habit of pulling gels out of the tray without wearing gloves. The authors were named 'blue fingers' after this. Among Coomassie dyes there are the Coomassie blue R-250 and G-250, disulfonated triphenylmethane, used by the biologists. The detection limit is 10–100 ng.[19,20] CBB is still in use since its first application in 1963 to stain proteins separated by cellulose acetate electrophoresis.[21] It is believed to interact with proteins by Van der Waals hydrophobic noncovalent interactions and also through electrostatic bonds with the amino groups of proteins in acidic environment. In classical protocols, CBB is used up to 1% in the presence of an alcohol (typically methanol) and acetic acid. As the dye has a lower affinity for the gel matrix than for proteins, destaining is performed in a similar solution.[18] It has been reported that heating dramatically decreases the time required for CBB staining and destaining of SDS-PAGE gels. For example, at 70°C, staining of a 1.5 mm gel can be completed in 5 min while destaining can be completed in 20 min.[22] An environmentally friendly method to destain CBB has been developed, allowing the disposing of CBB in manner and recycling the destaining solution. Various types of adsorbent papers (Kimwipes, multifold towels and Whatman number 1 and 3 filter paper) adsorb CBB. Kimwipes have been reported to work best[14] and the method is useful in reducing organic liquid waste.


Colloidal CBB

Colloidal CBB staining came later on, thanks to the attempts to reduce the background staining. Diezel et al. observed that CBB-G in 12.5% Trichloroacetic acid is converted into a colloidal[23] hindering dye entry into the gels, therefore giving a low background. Neuhoff et al. was the first to develop a staining method using colloidal CBB-G in the presence of ammonium sulfate and phosphoric acid, demonstrating the benefits of adding alcohol to the staining solution.[24] This is allowed the detection of weak spots.[19,20] The addition of methanol in the classical staining solution (20% methanol, 1.6% phosphoric acid, 8% ammonium sulfate, 0.08% CBB G-250), intended to shift the equilibrium from the colloidal form to dispersed dye, and facilitated the staining;[24] however, this introduced a main critical point, as will be discussed below. The principal characteristics that make colloidal CBB an excellent staining method are its ease of use, extremely low signal-to-noise ratio and its sensitivity.[16] Colloidal particles are in equilibrium with dispersed dye in solution. Protein staining (and low background) is achieved when the free dye enters the gel, while the colloidal dye particles are excluded. Lately, Candiano et al.,[25] Wang et al. [26] and Pink et al. [27] proposed different protocols aiming to overcome the limit of detection of CBB staining, still requiring approximately 10 ng of protein in a band. 'Blue silver' was developed by Candiano et al. as a modification of Colloidal CBB increasing dye by 20% and phosphoric acid by fivefold (staining solution: 20% methanol; 10% phosphoric acid; 10% ammonium sulfate; 0.12% G-250).[25] The lower pH, causing protonation of Asp and Glu residues, is thought to promote more efficient hydrophobic binding to aromatic and hydrophobic residues, allowing a more intensive staining. Blue silver is more sensitive than the other colloidal CBB-G stains, with a detection limit approaching 1 ng for BSA. The possibility of destaining 'blue silver' exclusively with ultrapure water is also advantageous as it is low in cost and minimally affects stained bands. Another modified protocol was described by Wang et al.:[26] after fixing, staining solution employs 5% v/v acetic acid, 45% v/v ethanol and 0.125% (w/v) CBB R-250. Indeed, colloidal CBB-G staining is more sensitive than CBB-R in solvent solutions (8 ng).[14,18] The procedure requires multiple steps. Moreover, the need for two destaining solutions (first 5% v/v acetic acid, 40% v/v ethanol; then 3% v/v acetic acid, 30% v/v ethanol) renders the method prone to dye loss also by the stained proteins. Pink et al. [27] substituted acetic acid with phosphoric acid during the fixation (10%) and staining of the gels (8%) and also 5% aluminum sulfate (Al2(SO4)3) 14–18 hydrate in the staining solution. Al2(SO4)3 is used in the fabric industry as a mordant; however, Pink et al. stated that it also acts as an ion-bridging reagent, as Al3+ binds the dodecyl sulfate part of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), by coagulation. Destaining is carried out in 2% phosphoric acid and 10% ethanol; afterwards gels are put in water overnight. Pink et al. modified this approach using a solution containing 10% ethanol, 0.02% of CBB G-250, and 8% phosphoric acid and 5% aluminum sulfate.[27]

Scanning CBB fluorescence with an infrared laser scanner was reported to provide an increase in sensitivity of two orders of magnitude, setting this method to a sensitivity as high as twice that of

SYPRO Ruby (SR), and therefore the best in the field.[1,15,28] A less irritating but sensitive CBB stain (detection limit about 12 ng) was developed (CGP). CGP employs citric acid, CBB G-250 and polyvinylpyrrolidone. Unlike CBB, it should avoid in vitro methylation of proteins.[29]


Silver Stain

Silver-staining protocols are the most sensitive, nonradioactive protein staining methods.[16] These are based upon deposition of metallic silver on proteins.[16,18] Typically they are multistep, time-consuming procedures that can, however, detect 100 pg to 1 ng protein per spot.[1,30] Alkaline and acidic silver nitrate stains can be distinguished. Numerous variants are available for both. Acidic silver nitrate staining was shown to have a detection limit of 2–4 ng.[16] Ammoniacal staining is more sensitive for basic proteins.[31] As it is not an end point procedure, silver staining shows poor linearity with saturation effects and a narrow dynamic range (one to two orders of magnitude), and thus is not reliable for quantification. Moreover, silver staining detects the proteins mainly on the gel surface[16] and the presence of glutaraldehyde in the classic silver staining method[31] causes modification of peptides, rendering the procedure incompatible to MS applications. Even though omission of glutaraldehyde in acidic silver-staining renders the procedure compatible to MS applications, in general silver stain is not compatible with MS, which is always true for ammoniacal silver stains.[16]


Curcumin Stain

A nontoxic fluorescent/colorimetric reversible extremely cheap protein stain has been developed that utilizes heat-solubilized Curcumin, the yellow pigment from Curcuma longa (turmeric). Interestingly, even though Curcumin is insoluble in water and ineffective in staining proteins if dissolved in ethanol, when heated at 100°C in water it is soluble up to 1.5%. Staining is achieved within 30 min. Authors report sensitivity similar to that of CBB. Destaining is not required and excess dye can be freely disposed of.[8]


Alta Staining

A simple, cheap and rapid protein staining method for polyacrylamide gels during electrophoresis (or for nitrocellulose during blotting) was reported. It utilizes a 5% solution of Alta, a commercially available cosmetic preparation, added in the anodic buffer during electrophoresis. After run, the gel is washed in ultrapure water and can be viewed under visible light. There is no need for destaining.[32]

 

Negative Stains

Negative, or reverse, stains yield transparent colorless protein bands on an opaque gel background.[16] These methods are the fastest to apply (they can take as little as 5–15 min); however, they appear neither accurate nor linear. Staining is mostly due to metal (zinc or copper) interaction with SDS in the areas where proteins are absent, with a sensitivity lying between that of CBB and silver. Metals precipitate to produce a negative image. For example, a negative staining with CuCl2 was developed: immediately after electrophoresis run, the gel is incubated in 0.3 M CuCl2 in the presence of 10–100 mM Tris buffer at high pH (8–9) and 0.05–0.5 SDS under gentle agitation for 5 min, then the gel is rinsed in ultrapure water. Gels can be stored indefinitely without staining loss.[33] Zinc staining is also utilized,[34] in which after electrophoresis, the gel is soaked for 30 s in ultrapure water and incubated in 0.2 M imidazole, plus 0.1% SDS with gentle agitation. The gel is then washed for a few seconds in fresh water and incubated in 0.2 M zinc sulfate for 1 min. The precipitate of zinc-imidazole-SDS on the gel surface leaves unstained protein bands. However, in these cases, chelation of metal ions with EDTA (0.25 M EDTA in Tris buffer for 30 min) is needed to elute proteins. This is a disadvantage, in that extensive EDTA destining can cause loss of protein as proteins are not permanently fixed. A sensitive, fast (completed within 1 min) and spontaneously reversible (after 30 min) staining was reported,[35] not based on metal ions. The gels are saturated in 8% (v/v) methyl trichloroacetate ester (MTA) in 38% isopropanol. After 1 h incubation, gels are put in ultrapure water and precipitation of MTA produces a negative image of proteins over the gel as opaque micelles are formed that are excluded from the protein spots.[35] However, this method is prone to small artifacts during MS identification, due to methylation of proteins by MTA.


Invisible Staining Procedures

Fluorescent Pre-electrophoretic Stains

A number of noncovalent fluorescent dyes are in use for staining of proteins either before or after electrophoresis[36] (reviewed in [16]). Their labeling of proteins can either involve a covalent bond with the protein or not. Among pre-run staining methods, lysine-binding dyes, the cyanine-based CyDyes (GE Health Care, NJ, USA) Cy2, Cy3 and Cy5[16,37] are widely used. These bind covalently with lysine residues (to a single lysine in each protein when the dye/protein ratio is 1–3%) via an amide linkage.[14] The use of three dyes allows differential images (DIGE)[11] of samples run in a single gel, which is their most interesting application as it rules out run-to-run differences in comparing proteins from two different samples. In DIGE, two samples plus one internal reference are labeled with a CyDye mixed and then scanning generates an image for each. Very sensitive cyanine dyes have been developed, that is the dyes CyDye Fluor Cy3 and Fluor Cy5 that covalently bind to the cysteine residues via a thioether bond. Labeling of cysteinesulfhydryl groups can be carried out with monobromobimane.[16] En epicocconone-based stain named 'deep purple' interacts with lysine amides.[38]

 

Fluorescent Post-electrophoretic Stains

SYPRO dyes are post-electrophoretic stains (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA). These deserve citation for their ease of use, sensitivity (1–10 ng: similar to silver-staining methods) and full compatibility with MS techniques.[7,39] In fact, SYPRO dyes do not contain interfering chemicals (such as glutaraldehyde), do not chemically modify proteins during staining and are reversible. SR, in particular, is the most used, having an excellent linear dynamic range (about four orders of magnitude) and a detection limit of around 0.5–5 ng.[7] SR binds to basic amino acids by electrostatic interaction similarly to colloidal CBB. SYPRO Tangerine can also be used in non-fixative solutions, permitting subsequent procedures.[7,39] The principal drawback of these fluorescent dyes, besides their being invisible and costly, is the need for a specific equipment to visualize them.

Experimental

In order to have a quantitative and qualitative comparative evaluation of the two methods, as it is difficult to compare gels from different papers, this section provides a comparison of two different staining methods, namely Colloidal CBB according to Pink et al. [27] and 'blue silver' according to Candiano et al. performed in blind mode. Figure 1 shows two monodimensional gels conducted using the discontinuous buffer system of Laemmli[40] of human serum albumin (HSA), loaded in sequential dilutions, starting from 100 ng and diluted by up to seven orders of dilution. Figure 1A shows the implementation of 'blue silver' staining, according to Candiano et al.:[25] after run, the gel was briefly washed with ultrapure water and then fixed in 20% methanol for 30 min. Then gel was treated with a small amount of staining solution (10% phosphoric acid, 10% ammonium sulfate, 20 % methanol, 0.12% CBB G-250) for 5 min. Then this solution was discarded and staining with the same solution was performed overnight; destaining was conducted with ultrapure water. Figure 1B represents the result of Colloidal CBB staining according to Pink et al.:[27] after run, the gel was fixed by protein fixation in 30% ethanol containing 2% phosphoric acid, the gel was then stained with 0.02% CBB-G250 in 8% (w/v) phosphoric acid, 5% aluminum sulfate and 10% ethanol for 3 h; destaining was conducted in 2% phosphoric acid and 30% ethanol for 30 min, then the gel was left in ultrapure water overnight.[27] Data in panels C and D represent the altimetry of the densitometric analysis of the gels in panels A and B, respectively. The output in terms of signal-to-noise ratio in the two staining procedures was considerably different. In fact, panel C shows that it was possible to read human serum albumin concentrations up to the 7th dilution, while in panel D only the 6th dilution was detectable. Therefore, Candiano et al. [25] has a sensitivity of 1.5 ng, higher than that of Colloidal CBB method from Pink et al. [27] Furthermore, initial background with the protocol by Pink et al. [27] was relatively higher. It may be speculated that this higher background is due to the effect of mordant, as this is the major difference between the two methods.

 

Figure 1. Comparison among two protocols for colloidal Coomassie brilliant blue staining used to stain two monodimensional SDS-PAGEs where human serum albumin was loaded in sequential dilutions, starting from 100 ng, and diluted up to seven orders of dilution. (A) The implemented 'blue silver' staining (10% phosphoric acid, 10% ammonium sulfate, 20% methanol, for 30 min 0.12% CBB G-250, after rinsing and fixation in 20% methanol, for 5 min) where methanol was added by the 'drop-by-drop' method. Destaining was conducted with ultrapure water. (B) The result of colloidal CBB staining (0.02% CBB-G250 in 8% (w/v) phosphoric acid, 5% aluminum sulfate and 10% ethanol; for 3 h, after fixation 30% ethanol, 2% phosphoric acid). Destaining was conducted in 2% phosphoric acid and 30% ethanol for 30 min, then in ultrapure water overnight. (C & D) The altimetry of the densitometric analysis of stained gels. CBB: Coomassie brilliant blue.

In time, the method by Candiano et al.,[25] confirmed its efficacy and was demonstrated to be open to a use, which the authors describe here, concerning the mode of preparation of the staining solution, rather than its recipe. The critical point lays in the mode of addition of methanol, which facilitates the staining.[24] Methanol addition to the solution of 10% phosphoric acid, and 10% ammonium sulfate is a critical step. It should be added extremely slowly (ideally in a 'drop-by-drop' manner, i.e., in small amounts and not in one step), under continuous and vigorous stirring in order to preserve the micellar colloidal suspension of the dye. This improves sensitivity (Figures 2 & 3). Indeed, the final physicochemical conditions of the solution are not the same in either case. The physical state of the solution can be easily inferred by the color of the solution: it will be a dusty greenish-blue when addition has been performed slowly but light blue if addition has been carried out incorrectly (too quickly). In the latter case, the homogenous blue color denotes dispersion of the micelles, with loss of the improved sensitivity.

 

Figure 2. Comparison among Coomassie brilliant blue-G250-based stainings of protein spots of human serum separated by in 2-DE. The first dimension was a 'Soft IPG' (24 cm nonlinear pH 3–10 Immobiline strips, IPG). Isoelectric focusing was performed at 17°C (120 kV/h). IPG were then incubated for 20 min in 0.05 M Tris-HC1, pH 6.8, 6 M urea, 30% (w/v) glycerol and 5% (w/v) SDS and embedded onto the SDS-PAGE slabs with 0.5% w/v melted agarose, plus 0.001% w/v bromophenol blue. The second dimension was a 6–16% gradient polyacrylamide gel (180 × 160 × 1.5 mm) run at 45 mA/gel. Gels were stained with the followings after electrophoresis methods: (A) 'blue silver' staining: 10% phosphoric acid, 10% ammonium sulfate, 20% methanol, for 30 min 0.12% CBB G-250, after rinsing and fixation in 20% methanol, for 5 min; (B) colloidal CBB staining 0.02% CBB-G250 in 8% (w/v) phosphoric acid, 5% aluminum sulfate and 10% ethanol; for 3 h, after fixation 30% ethanol, 2% phosphoric acid; (C) CBB staining according to Neuhoff (gel was stained in 2% phosphoric acid, 10% ammonium sulfate, 20% methanol, 0.1% CBB G-250 overnight). CBB: Coomassie brilliant blue.

Figure 2 shows three 2-DE of human serum as stained with the method 'blue silver' staining according to Candiano et al. [25] (panel A); colloidal CBB staining according to Pink et al. [27] (already detailed) (Panel B) and CBB staining according to Neuhoff[24] (gel was stained in 2% phosphoric acid, 10% ammonium sulfate, 20% methanol and 0.1% CBB G-250 overnight) (Panel C). For the first dimension of the 2-DE, 'Soft IPG' (24 cm nonlinear pH 3–10 Immobiline™ strips (GE Healthcare, NJ, USA), IPG) were employed, as previously described.[41] The sample was loaded in at the basic end of the rehydrated IPG. Isoelectric focusing was performed at 17°C by progressively increasing the voltage (100 V for 2 h, up to 8000 V, for a total of 120 kV/h). IPG were then incubated for 20 min in 0.05 M Tris-HC1,pH 6.8, 6 M urea, 30% (w/v) glycerol and 5% (w/v) SDS, then embedded onto the SDS-PAGE slabs with 0.5% w/v melted agarose, containing 0.001% w/v bromophenol blue. The second dimension was a 6–16% gradient polyacrylamide gel (180 × 160 × 1.5 mm) run in a Protean® II Multi-Cell vertical chamber (Bio-Rad, CA, USA), at 45 mA/gel. Picking of spots (1 mm diameter) was performed by a SpotCutter® (Bio-Rad, CA, USA). These were trypsin digested and subjected to MS analysis using an LTQ™ linear trap mass spectrometer (Thermo Electron, CA, USA) equipped with a Jupiter® C18 column 250 × 1 mm (Phenomenex, CA, USA). Spectra were acquired in automated MS/MS mode. Peptides were eluted by an acetonitrile gradient. Sequence coverage in the three 2-DE was very similar (between 20 and 22%). In fact 100 ng of protein had been loaded in all cases. The difference lays in the absolute possibility of spot detection, in that a better stained spot will have a higher probability to be detected. Therefore, the use of a sensitive staining allows to increase the number of identified spots.

Figure 3 shows the digitized image of a classical 2-DE performed on normal human urine sample processed with 'proteomineering' combinatorial peptide ligand libraries protocol,[42,43] stained with the present implementation of 'blue silver' protocol. A total of about 2000 spots were detected. When the 'blue silver' protocol is performed as detailed above, it gives an optimal signal-to-background ratio, good to optimize the dynamic range.

 

Figure 3.'Blue silver' colloidal Coomassie brilliant blue-stained 2-DE gel scanned in light-transmission mode with a white light source of 100 μg of total protein from human urine processed by the combinatorial peptide ligand libraries method. Peptides were separated in a first dimension by isoelectric focusing on immobilized pH 3–10 strip, then by a second dimension by 8–14% SDS-PAGE.

 

Expert Commentary

A good detection of proteins in an in-gel separation will depend almost equally on the characteristics of the staining method and on how this can allow quantification without loss of information. Smejkal[1] observed that an ideal dye should bind to proteins without interfering with their amino acid composition or physicochemical characteristics. As stated above, CBB is a staining method that seems to encompass more advantages and less drawbacks. Coomassie staining is not either the most sensitive or the most linear method, but appears to be an excellent compromise allowing detection, quantification and picking, with minimal problems in the MS analysis. In fact, silver stains are more sensitive, but delicate and poorly MS compatible. Fluorescent stains are perfect for detection and quantification, but they are expensive and spot-picking is difficult. In fact many Researchers have tried to optimize the original[24] protocol, as Candiano et al.,[25] Wang et al. [26] and Pink et al.,[27] giving rise to a dispute among the single laboratories, on which method was the most sensitive.[101] As stated by Westermeier,[101] indeed the reason for the different outcomes of the cited methods may reside in slight variations in the quality of single reagents or else in the physical state of the preparation, being it a suspension, as demonstrated by the present implementation of the 'blue silver' method.[25] Our present and previous observations have confirmed the validity of the 'blue silver' staining method by Candiano et al..[25] Notably, Compton and Jones[17] observed that the electric charge on CBB can be distinguished by the color, being the unprotonated anionic species blue and the neutral ones green (the doubly protonated cationic one red). For a long time it was presumed that only the anionic species form complexes, instead we may conclude by the greenish oil-like color of the properly mixed 'blue silver' that the neutral ones complexate better with proteins. In fact, when addition of methanol is done in a one-step procedure instead of adding it 'drop by drop' as stated above with extremely gentle stirring (being perhaps the only time-consuming step, to be done the day before need) colloidal micelles are suddenly dispersed and the color of the solution shifts from a greenish dusty deep blue to a brilliant homogenous blue (typical of the formation of unprotonated anionic species, and much less efficient in complexation with proteins).[17] When micelles are dispersed, the sensitivity of the method drops from 1–5 ng down to 10 ng or worse. The state of the micelles is pivotal, therefore any care must be taken in avoiding micelle solubilization. This can happen also if the gel is not properly washed, in order to eliminate SDS. All of the colloidal CBB staining suffer from this drawback; in fact, the other colloidal protocols utilize Al2(SO4)3 in order to eliminate SDS from the gel.[27]

A sensitive and extremely low background signal, sensibly lower than that reported by Pink et al. [27] as shown in Figure 2, is obtained with the improvement of 'blue silver' that we propose here. Moreover, the proposed method is carried out in the absence of mordant, being suitable for a number of subsequent steps in detection and analysis of proteins separated by 2-D gel. Image acquisition for 2-DE is a critical step. Variations in spatial resolution will affect both the output of the image and the quality of spot detection. Considering that each doubling in spatial resolution quadruples the amount of data to be processed, a staining method should be used that reduces this risk. In turn, background signal should not contribute to protein signal. Considering that non-colloidal CBB is more prone to high and non-uniform backgrounds,[7] the use of the improved 'blue silver' method that we propose will allow for the other benefits of CBB staining to be harnessed. Also, the availability of a reliable and sensitive low-background staining method will reinforce the use of in-gel 2-DE proteomics. 2-DE, until now, is the only technique for parallel quantitative expression analysis of large sets of protein mixtures (up to a few thousand proteins) that can preserve the information coming from changes in protein expression level, isoforms or post-translational modifications.

Finally, there is a more stringent parameter: the rapidity of the destaining step. Post-staining should not be a time-consuming step and/or a critical step altering the proteins or reducing the stain of proteins besides that of both the background. It should be considered that the choice of the imaging system depends on the type of protein staining method utilized. Even though the recently developed fluorescent dyes such as the CyDyes and SYPRO dyes (such as SR) are probably the best invisible dye, with an unrivalled dynamic range and sensitivity, also for low MW proteins, they are expensive and need costly devices for image digitalization of gels,[16] while flatbed scanners can only be used for imaging visible dyes but not for single- or multicolor fluorescence. Moreover, fluorescent protein stains display a background fluorescence. Labeling with cyanines is a rapid and low background technique but binding may alter the two physical parameters used in 2-DE, that is, pI and Mr or change structure of the proteins in the sample.[16,44]

As far as sensitivity is concerned, silver stains, especially silver nitrate are excellent; however, irreversible modification of amino acids limits MS analysis. Omission of glutaraldehyde can partly overcome this problem but decreases sensitivity.[16] Moreover, as silver stain is without a staining end point, linear dynamic response is low and protocols are time-consuming.

Five-year View

Apart from considering the availability of the sample, composition of the proteins of interest, post-staining procedure and available equipment, the selection of an appropriate staining method is pivotal to the proper identification of separated proteins. From now on it will be possible to utilize the present implementation of the 'blue silver' protocol[25] as a low background, simple and sensitive method. Even though cyanine dyes are promising, they bear the disadvantage of being not visible and being costly. Moreover, some mobility differences between labeled and unlabeled species of the same protein especially for small proteins have been reported (i.e., unlabeled proteins were faster than the labeled ones), which can affect subsequent MS analysis. 'Blue silver' is also recommendable for staining and useful prior to spot picking from minimally labeled DIGE gels.[11,45] When the objective of 2-D gel analysis is the separation of proteins differentially expressed between different samples in different gels, image warping and gel matching must be performed. Cross gel matching is complicated by experimental noise inherent in the system, which causes geometric distortion of protein patterns common to different gels.[16] One of the sources which include distortion is staining procedures.

Sidebar

Key Issues

  • Gel proteomics is still a method of choice for the resolution of complex protein samples.

  • The choice of proper staining procedures is of the outmost importance for the quantification of in-gel separated protein.

  • Colloidal Coomassie brilliant blue staining methods are the most popular and offer the best staining yield.

  • Many researchers have contributed to the development of more sensitive colloidal Coomassie brilliant blue staining procedures.

  • The physical–chemical characteristics of the colloidal 'blue silver' staining solution are very important, in particular, that an implementation of the protocol of preparation, rather than of the quality of single reagents, leads to a higher performance.

References

  1. Smejkal GB. The Coomassie chronicles: past, present and future perspectives in polyacrylamide gel staining. Expert Rev. Proteomics 1(4), 381–387 (2004).

  2. O'Farrell PH. High resolution 2D electrophoresis of proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 250(10), 4007–4021 (1975).

  3. Fenn JB, Mann M, Meng CK, Wong SF, Whitehouse CM. Electrospray ionization for mass spectrometry of large biomolecules. Science 246(4926), 64–71 (1989).

  4. Shevchenko A, Jensen ON, Podtelejnikov AV et al. Linking genome and proteome by mass spectrometry: large-scale identification of yeast proteins from two dimensional gels. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93(25), 14440–14445 (1996).

  5. Rabilloud T. 2D gel electrophoresis in proteomics: old, old fashioned, but it still climbs up the mountains. Proteomics 2(1), 3–10 (2002).

  6. Yergey AL, Coorssen JR, Backlund PS Jr et al. De novo sequencing of peptides using MALDI/TOF–TOF. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 13(7), 784–791 (2002).

  7. Chevalier F, Rofidal V, Vanova P, Bergoin A, Rossignol M. Proteomic capacity of recent fluorescent dyes for protein staining. Phytochemistry 65(11), 1499–1506 (2004).

  8. Kurien BT, Dorri Y, Scofield RH. Spicy SDS-PAGE gels: curcumin/turmeric as an environment-friendly protein stain. Methods Mol. Biol. 869, 567–578 (2012).

  9. Bjellqvist B, Ek K, Righetti PG et al. Isoelectric focusing in immobilized pH gradients: principle, methodology and some applications. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 6(4), 317–339 (1982).

  10. Görg A, Postel W, Günther S. The current state of 2D electrophoresis with immobilized pH gradients. Electrophoresis 9(9), 531–546 (1988).

  1. Unlü M, Morgan ME, Minden JS. Difference gel electrophoresis: a single gel method for detecting changes in protein extracts. Electrophoresis 18(11), 2071–2077 (1997).

  2. Alban A, David SO, Bjorkesten L et al. A novel experimental design for comparative 2D gel analysis: 2D difference gel electrophoresis incorporating a pooled internal standard. Proteomics 3(1), 36–44 (2003).

  3. Görg A, Weiss W, Dunn MJ. Current 2D electrophoresis technology for proteomics. Proteomics 4(12), 3665–3685 (2004).

  4. Dorri Y, Kurien BT. Environmentally safe removal/disposal of Coomassie Brilliant Blue from gel destain and used gel stain. Anal. Biochem. 404(2), 193–196 (2010).

  5. Chevalier F. Highlights on the capacities of 'gel-based' proteomics. Proteome Sci. 8, 23 (2010).

  6. Gauci VJ, Wright EP, Coorssen JR. Quantitative proteomics: assessing the spectrum of in-gel protein detection methods. J. Chem. Biol. 4(1), 3–29 (2011).

  7. Compton SJ, Jones CG. Mechanism of dye response and interference in the Bradford protein assay. Anal. Biochem. 151(2), 369–374 (1985).

  8. Patton WF. Detection technologies in proteome analysis. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 771(1-2), 3–31 (2002).

  9. Flengsrud R. Separation of acidic barley endosperm proteins by 2D electrophoresis. Electrophoresis 14(10), 1060–1066 (1993).

  10. Langen H, Berndt P, Röder D, Cairns N, Lubec G, Fountoulakis M. 2D map of human brain proteins. Electrophoresis 20(4-5), 907–916 (1999).

  11. Fazekas De St Groth S, Webster RG, Datyner A. Two new staining procedures for quantitative estimation of proteins on electrophoretic strips. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 71, 377–391 (1963).

  12. Kurien BT, Scofield RH. Heat mediated quick Coomassie blue protein staining and destaining of SDS-PAGE gels. Indian J. Biochem. Biophys. 35(6), 385–389 (1998).

  13. Diezel W, Kopperschläger G, Hofmann E. An improved procedure for protein staining in polyacrylamide gels with a new type of Coomassie Brilliant Blue. Anal. Biochem. 48(2), 617–620 (1972).

  14. Neuhoff V, Arold N, Taube D, Ehrhardt W. Improved staining of proteins in polyacrylamide gels including isoelectric focusing gels with clear background at nanogram sensitivity using Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 and R-250. Electrophoresis 9(6), 255–262 (1988).

  15. Candiano G, Bruschi M, Musante L et al. Blue silver: a very sensitive colloidal Coomassie G-250 staining for proteome analysis. Electrophoresis 25(9), 1327–1333 (2004).

  16. Wang X, Li X, Li Y. A modified Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining method at nanogram sensitivity compatible with proteomic analysis. Biotechnol. Lett. 29(10), 1599–1603 (2007).

  1. Pink M, Verma N, Rettenmeier AW, Schmitz-Spanke S. CBB staining protocol with higher sensitivity and mass spectrometric compatibility. Electrophoresis 31(4), 593–598 (2010).

  2. Smejkal GB, Robinson MH, Lazarev A. Comparison of fluorescent stains: relative photostability and differential staining of proteins in 2D gels. Electrophoresis 25(15), 2511–2519 (2004).

  3. Yasumitsu H, Ozeki Y, Kawsar SM, Toda T, Kanaly R. CGP stain: An inexpensive, odorless, rapid, sensitive, and in principle in vitro methylation-free Coomassie Brilliant Blue stain. Anal. Biochem. 406(1), 86–88 (2010).

  4. Raymond S, Wang YJ. Preparation and properties of acrylamide gel for use in electrophoresis. Anal. Biochem. 1, 391–396 (1960).

  5. Rabilloud T. A comparison between low background silver diammine and silver nitrate protein stains. Electrophoresis 13(7), 429–439 (1992).

  6. Pal JK, Berwal SK, Soni RN. A single-step simultaneous protein staining procedure for polyacrylamide gels and nitrocellulose membranes by Alta during western blot analysis. Methods Mol. Biol. 869, 551–559 (2012).

  7. Lee C, Levin A, Branton D. Copper staining: a five-minute protein stain for sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gels. Anal. Biochem. 166(2), 308–312 (1987).

  8. Fernandez-Patron C, Castellanos-Serra L, Hardy E et al. Understanding the mechanism of the zinc-ion stains of biomacromolecules in electrophoresis gels: generalization of the reverse-staining technique. Electrophoresis 19(14), 2398–2406 (1998).

  9. Candiano G, Porotto M, Lanciotti M, Ghiggeri GM. Negative staining of proteins in polyacrylamide gels with methyl trichloroacetate. Anal. Biochem. 243(2), 245–248 (1996).

  10. Jackson P, Urwin VE, Mackay CD. Rapid imaging, using a cooled charge-coupled-device, of fluorescent 2D polyacrylamide gels produced by labelling proteins in the first-dimensional isoelectric focusing gel with the fluorophore 2-methoxy-2,4-diphenyl-3(2H)furanone. Electrophoresis 9(7), 330–339 (1988).

  11. Tonge R, Shaw J, Middleton B et al. Validation and development of fluorescence 2D differential gel electrophoresis proteomics technology. Proteomics 1(3), 377–396 (2001).

  12. Choi JK, Yoon SH, Hong HY, Choi DK, Yoo GS. A modified Coomassie blue staining of proteins in polyacrylamide gels with Bismark brown R. Anal. Biochem. 236(1), 82–84 (1996).

  13. Berggren K, Steinberg TH, Lauber WM et al. A luminescent ruthenium complex for ultrasensitive detection of proteins immobilized on membrane supports. Anal. Biochem. 276(2), 129–143 (1999).

  14. Laemmli UK. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227(5259), 680–685 (1970).

  15. Bruschi M, Musante L, Candiano G et al. Soft immobilized pH gradient gels in proteome analysis: a follow-up. Proteomics 3(6), 821–825 (2003).

  1. Boschetti E, Bindschedler LV, Tang C, Fasoli E, Righetti PG. Combinatorial peptide ligand libraries and plant proteomics: a winning strategy at a price. J. Chromatogr. A 1216(8), 1215–1222 (2009).

  2. Righetti PG, Boschetti E. The ProteoMiner and the FortyNiners: searching for gold nuggets in the proteomic arena. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 27(6), 596–608 (2008).

  3. Kierszenbaum F, Levison SA, Dandliker WB. Fractionation of fluorescent-labeled proteins according to the degree of labeling. Anal. Biochem. 28(1), 563–572 (1969).

  4. Lei Z, Elmer AM, Watson BS, Dixon RA, Mendes PJ, Sumner LW. A 2D electrophoresis proteomic reference map and systematic identification of 1367 proteins from a cell suspension culture of the model legume Medicago truncatula. Mol. Cell Proteomics 4(11), 1812–1825 (2005).

    Website

    101. Reiner Westermeier. www.practical.proteomics-journal.com

Sources:

Expert Rev Proteomics. 2012;9(6):627-634. © 2012  Expert Reviews Ltd.

Product added to compare.