Post on 21-Apr-2023
Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8 1DOI 10.1002/pmic.201300162
Proteomics of CaCO3
biomineral-associated proteins: How to
properly address their analysis
Benjamin Marie1, Paula Ramos-Silva2,3, Frederic Marin2 and Arul Marie4
1 UMR 7245 CNRS/MNHN, Molecules de Communication et d’Adaptation des Micro-organismes, Museum Nationald’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
2 UMR 6282 CNRS/uB, Biogeosciences, Universite de Bourgogne, Dijon, France3 Section Computational Science, Informatics Institute, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands4 UMR 7245 CNRS/MNHN, Plateforme de Spectrometrie de Masse et de Proteomique, Museum National d’HistoireNaturelle, Paris, France
In a recent editorial (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2013 110, E2144–E2146) and elsewhere, questionshave been raised regarding the experimental practices in relation to the proteomic analysisof organic matrices associated to the biomineralized CaCO3 skeletons of metazoans such asmolluscan shells and coral skeletons. Indeed, although the use of new high sensitivity MStechnology potentially allows to identify a greater number of proteins, it is also equally (oreven more) sensitive to contamination of residual proteins from soft tissues, which are in closecontact with the biomineral. Based on our own past and present experimental know-how—observations that are reproducible and coherent with the current understanding of extracellularbiomineralization processes—we are convinced that a careful and appropriate cleaning ofbiominerals prior to any analysis is crucial for accurate proteomic investigations and subsequentpertinent interpretation of the results. Our goal is to alert the scientific community about theassociated bias that definitely should be avoided, and to provide critical recommendations onsample preparation and experimental design, in order to better take advantage of the aptness ofproteomic approaches aiming at improving our understanding of the molecular mechanismsin biomineralization.
Keywords:
Animal proteomics / Biomineralization / Bleaching treatment / Calcifying extracellularmatrix / Protein identification / Sample preparation
Received: April 29, 2013Revised: July 26, 2013
Accepted: August 5, 2013
1 Introduction
Most of metazoan skeletons are produced extracellularly viathe secretion of precursor ions, together with an acellu-lar organic matrix that remains embedded within the ma-ture biomineral structures once deposited. This extracellular
Correspondence: Dr. Benjamin Marie, UMR 7245 CNRS MCAM,Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 12 rue Buffon CP39, 75005Paris, FranceE-mail: bmarie@mnhn.frFax: +33-1-40-79-31-35
Abbreviations: ECM, extracellular matrix; NaOCl, sodiumhypochlorite; RLCD, repeat low complexity domain; SOMP, skele-ton organic matrix protein
matrix (ECM) comprises amalgamates of proteins, glycopro-teins, polysaccharides, and lipids, with the proteinaceous frac-tion being the dominant moiety. Although the ECM repre-sents only a small fraction of the biomineral weight (between0.1 and 5% w/w), it is thought to exquisitely regulate the min-eral deposition, and consequently, to play a central role in thewhole biomineralization process [1].
Since the 1990s, ECM proteins extracted from calcified ske-letons of few nonvertebrate metazoan models have been grad-ually characterized by “one-by-one” approaches (for review onechinoderms or mollusks see [2–4]). However, this strategydid not give a complete picture of these ECM protein reper-toires. More recently, thanks to advances in high-throughputgenomic and transcriptomic sequencing of an increasingnumber of nonmodel organisms, proteomic analyses of the
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com
2 B. Marie et al. Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8
Correspondence concerning this andother Viewpoint articles can be accessedon the journals’ home page at:http://viewpoint.proteomics-journal.de
Correspondence for posting on thesepages is welcome and can also besubmitted at this site.
so-called skeleton organic matrix proteins (SOMPs) extractedafter dissolution of the mineral phase, combined with theinterrogation of nucleic acid datasets has resulted in thedescription of numerous novel proteins from various non-vertebrate metazoan species [5–14].
The combination of global SOMP MS-based proteomicsand transcriptomics/genomics performed by us [6, 7, 10, 12,13] has led to the identification of about 40–60 ECM-specificproteins (depending on the biological model), exhibitingunique primary structures with signal peptide, transmem-brane and repeat low-complexity domains, enzyme and/orECM signatures. In addition, a specific expression of theirtranscripts can be measured in skeleton-secreting tissues orby immunolocalization of the translated proteins [10,12], con-stituting a strong experimental evidence of their involvementin the biomineralization process. Surprisingly, few otherworks have published much larger lists of biomineral ECM-associated proteins that were identified employing similarapproaches (up to 200–300 proteins per model depending onthe taxa [9, 11]). But contrary to our findings, the latter listscontain, in addition to ECM-specific proteins, numerous in-tracellular proteins. In our experiments, these obvious cellconstituent proteins are not observed when biomineral struc-tures are adequately cleaned prior to ECM extraction. Hence,we assert that these proteins should be considered as con-taminants, and not assigned as true SOMPs without furtherinvestigation [15].
2 Contamination of extracellularcalcifying matrices extracted frombiomineral structure by cellularcomponents
During the editorial process of one of our previousmanuscripts on the proteomic investigation of the calcifiedshell layers from the gastropod Haliotis asinina [6], an anony-mous reviewer asked us to justify why we identified onlyECM-specific proteins and no intracellular ones, arguing thatbiomineralization does not take place in a clean room, andthat intracellular proteins are often part of the list of ECM’sproteins, as exemplified by the work pertaining to the calci-fied structures of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpura-tus [5]. Although, intracellular proteins (such as actins andtubulins) can be sometimes detected within the extractableorganic components associated to mineralized tissues [14],we assume that their occurrence results from contamination
by cell constituting proteins of cellular remains [13, 15], andare not embedded or strongly associated to the mineral phase.Indeed, other proteomic analyses on the organic matrices ex-tracted from cleaned otolith (from fish) led to the identifica-tion of only few specific proteins (Table 1), all ECM-related,that appear to be directly involved in the formation of theseinner ear calcified structures [16].
To better illustrate this problem, we report on Table 1 themain recent proteomic approaches applied to study mineral-ized structures of CaCO3 in four metazoan phyla, describingthe cleaning procedure, demineralization and extraction stepstogether with the corresponding database search tools usedfor protein identification. By collecting the number of pro-teins identified in each study and inferring their predictedlocation based on sequence properties [17] it is clear that thecleaning step may, at least, partially, strongly influence thenumber of hits, in particular, it can increase the numberof identifications corresponding to intracellular constituentsand other ubiquitous proteins. We believe however that theseprotein hits can be avoided by an extensive and adapted clean-ing method of the biomineral structures, prior to the extrac-tion of the organic matrix.
In addition to the information described in Table 1, weexplain here the effect of the cleaning procedure typified bytwo examples: the first one deals with the investigation of theSOMP from freshwater gastropod Lymnaea stagnalis (Fig. 1).We demonstrate that some proteins, such as actins, tubu-lins, ATPases, and myosins, are intracellular contaminantsfrom cell fragments, that remain after a “simple bleaching”treatment, but can be removed by an additional drastic clean-ing of the biomineral fine powder with concentrated sodiumhypochlorite (NaOCl) (10%, 5 h) in addition to the umbilicusremoval. The second example refers to the SOMP analysisof the stony coral Acropora millepora [13, 15], for which—similarly to the first example—two bleaching treatments wererequired to remove cellular contaminants. We would like toinsist here on the fact that the publication of SOMP listscontaining such contaminants is misleading and detrimentalfor our understanding of biocalcification mechanisms andto the elaboration of molecular models, since there is cur-rently no evidence that intracellular proteins—no matter theirsubcellular localization—interact directly with the growingbiomineral. Moreover, because it blurs the picture of the di-versity of SOMPs, and the comprehension of ECM functionsin biomineralization processes, this problem aims at beingcarefully appreciated.
3 Why it is crucial to avoid cellularcomponent contamination andgenerate specific protein lists
One major point for understanding organic matrix-mediatedbiomineralization processes is to identify, for a given bio-logical model, all key proteins (the “minimal toolbox”) re-quired for mineralization and their respective functions.
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com
Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8 3
Ta
ble
1.
Su
mm
ary
of
the
mai
nM
S-b
ased
pro
teo
mic
app
roac
hes
app
lied
inth
ere
cen
tye
ars
(200
5–20
13)
tom
iner
aliz
edst
ruct
ure
so
fca
lciu
mca
rbo
nat
efr
om
met
azo
ano
rig
in.
Sp
ecie
sC
alci
fied
Key
clea
nin
gD
emin
eral
izat
ion
Org
anic
Ext
ract
ion
LC-M
S/M
S/
Dat
aId
enti
fied
Pro
tein
tiss
ue
step
sfr
acti
on
sp
roce
du
rein
terr
oga
tio
nso
urc
ep
rote
ins
loca
lizat
ion
Cn
idar
iaA
cro
po
ram
illep
ora
[13]
Ske
leto
n(1
)W
ash
edfr
agm
ents
inN
aOC
l5%
v/v,
72h
.(2
)Po
wd
er(<
200
�m
)in
NaO
Cl1
%v/
v,5
h.
Ace
tic
acid
10%
v/v
over
nig
ht
at4�
Cu
nti
lpH
4
AS
MC
entr
ifu
gati
on
Ult
rafi
ltra
tio
nD
ialy
sis
LTQ
–FT
/MA
SC
OT
NC
BI
nu
cleo
tid
es(1
0138
0)E
ST
(15
389)
36E
CM
—15
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—13
Mem
bra
ne—
3In
trac
ellu
lar—
0U
nkn
ow
n—
5A
IM6
×C
entr
ifu
gati
on
wit
hm
illiQ
wat
er
Acr
op
ora
mill
epo
ra[1
3,15
]S
kele
ton
(1)
Was
hed
frag
men
tsin
NaO
Cl5
%v/
v,72
h.
Ace
tic
acid
10%
v/v
over
nig
ht
at4�
Cu
nti
lpH
4
AS
MC
entr
ifu
gati
on
Ult
rafi
ltra
tio
nD
ialy
sis
LTQ
–FT
/MA
SC
OT
NC
BI
nu
cleo
tid
es(1
0138
0)E
ST
(15
389)
52E
CM
—12
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—7
Mem
bra
ne—
5In
trac
ellu
lar—
14U
nkn
ow
n—
14
Sty
lop
ho
rap
isti
llata
[14]
Ske
leto
n(1
)W
ash
edfr
agm
ents
inN
aOC
l3%
wt/
v,4
h.
(2)
Pow
der
(<15
0�
m)
seco
nd
ble
ach
ing
.
1N
HC
lat
roo
mte
mp
erat
ure
pH
7
AS
MA
IMC
entr
ifu
gati
on
Ace
ton
e90
%C
entr
ifu
gati
on
LTQ
–FT
/X!
Tan
dem
Dra
ftg
eno
me
36E
CM
—7
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—
0M
emb
ran
e—8
Intr
acel
lula
r—7
Un
kno
wn
—14
Ech
ino
der
mat
aS
tro
ng
ylo
cen
tro
tus
pu
rpu
ratu
s[5
]S
pic
ule
sIs
ola
tio
no
fsp
icu
les
follo
wed
by
cen
trif
uga
tio
nin
ters
per
sed
by
succ
essi
vere
susp
ensi
on
sin
:
Ace
tic
acid
50%
v/v
for
5h
at4�
CA
SM
Dia
lysi
sLT
Q–F
T/
Max
Qu
ant
Pred
icte
dan
no
tate
dp
rote
inm
od
els
(Gle
an3)
231
EC
M–7
2E
CM
/Mem
bra
ne—
40M
emb
ran
e—51
Intr
acel
lula
r—66
Un
kno
wn
—2
(1)
NaO
Cl4
.5%
v/v
for
1–2
min
.(2
)C
aCO
3-sa
tura
ted
wat
er.
(3)
Eth
ano
l,th
enac
eto
ne
(100
%).
Test
and
spin
e
(1)
Test
scu
tin
to2
hal
ves
and
was
hed
.(2
)3
×20
0m
LN
aOC
l(6
–14%
acti
vech
lori
ne)
,10
min
.
Ace
tic
acid
50%
v/v
over
nig
ht
at4�
CA
SM
AS
M
Dia
lysi
sLT
Q-F
T/M
AS
CO
TPr
edic
ted
ann
ota
ted
pro
tein
mo
del
s(G
lean
3)
110
EC
M—
35E
CM
/Mem
bra
ne—
23M
emb
ran
e—20
Intr
acel
lula
r—28
Un
kno
wn
—4
Too
th(1
)4
×20
0m
LN
aOC
l(6
–14%
acti
vech
lori
ne)
,1
h,w
ith
chan
ges
afte
r15
min
wit
ha
2-m
inso
nic
atio
nin
terv
alaf
ter
ever
ych
ang
e.(2
)R
edu
ced
top
ow
der
and
was
hed
agai
nas
in1.
Ace
tic
acid
50%
v/v
over
nig
ht
at4�
CA
SM
Dia
lysi
sLT
Q-F
T/M
AS
CO
TPr
edic
ted
ann
ota
ted
pro
tein
mo
del
s(G
lean
3)
138
EC
M—
49E
CM
/Mem
bra
ne—
24M
emb
ran
e—40
Intr
acel
lula
r—21
Un
kno
wn
—4
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com
4 B. Marie et al. Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8Ta
ble
1.
Co
nti
nu
ed
Sp
ecie
sC
alci
fied
Key
clea
nin
gD
emin
eral
izat
ion
Org
anic
Ext
ract
ion
LC-M
S/M
S/
Dat
aId
enti
fied
Pro
tein
tiss
ue
step
sfr
acti
on
sp
roce
du
rein
terr
oga
tio
nso
urc
ep
rote
ins
loca
lizat
ion
Mo
llusc
aP
inct
ada
mar
gari
tife
raan
dP
inct
ada
max
ima
[10]
Sh
ell:
Nac
rePr
ism
s
(1)
Inta
ctsh
ells
inN
aOC
l1%
v/v
for
24h
.(2
)S
epar
ated
shel
llay
ers
tho
rou
gh
lyri
nse
dw
ith
wat
er,c
rush
edin
to∼1
-mm
2fr
agm
ents
and
sub
seq
uen
tly
into
fin
ep
ow
der
(>20
0�
m).
Ace
tic
acid
5%v/
vov
ern
igh
tat
4�C
un
tilp
H4.
2
AS
MC
entr
ifu
gati
on
Ult
rafi
ltra
tio
nD
ialy
sis
Q-T
OF/
MA
SC
OT
and
Pro
tein
-Pilo
t
NC
BI
ES
T(7
679
0)–
P.m
arga
riti
fera
ES
T+
nu
cleo
tid
e(7
272)
–P.
max
ima
80E
CM
—51
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—4
Mem
bra
ne—
6In
trac
ellu
lar—
0U
nkn
ow
n—
19
AIM
6×
Cen
trif
uga
tio
nw
ith
mill
iQw
ater
Hal
ioti
sas
inin
a[6
]S
hel
l:N
acre
Pris
ms
(1)
Inta
ctsh
ells
inN
aOC
l1%
v/v
for
24h
.(2
)S
epar
ated
shel
llay
ers
tho
rou
gh
lyri
nse
dw
ith
wat
er,c
rush
edin
to∼1
-mm
2fr
agm
ents
and
sub
seq
uen
tly
into
fin
ep
ow
der
(>20
0�
m).
Ace
tic
acid
5%v/
vov
ern
igh
tat
4�C
un
tilp
H4.
2
AS
M
AIM
Cen
trif
uga
tio
nU
ltra
filt
rati
on
Dia
lysi
s
6×
Cen
trif
uga
tio
nw
ith
mill
iQw
ater
Q-T
OF/
MA
SC
OT
NC
BI
Nu
cleo
tid
es+
ES
T(9
.167
)
14E
CM
—11
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—0
TM
—0
Intr
acel
lula
r—0
Un
kno
wn
—3
Cra
sso
stre
ag
igas
[11]
Sh
ell:
Nac
rePr
ism
s
(1)
Inta
ctsh
ells
inN
aOC
l,24
h.
30m
Lo
fac
etic
acid
solu
tio
n5%
un
til
pH
4.0,
stir
red
over
nig
ht.
No
tsp
ecifi
ed
TC
A20
%,2
hC
entr
ifu
gati
on
(3×)
Ace
ton
ean
dce
ntr
ifu
gati
on
LTQ
-FT
/MA
SC
OT
NC
BI
An
no
tate
dp
rote
inm
od
els
(26
086)
259
EC
M—
75E
CM
/Mem
bra
ne—
10M
emb
ran
e—30
Intr
acel
lula
r—13
5U
nkn
ow
n—
9
Lott
iag
igan
tea
[9]
Sh
ell:
Sp
her
ulit
icPr
ism
atic
Cro
ss-
lam
ella
r
(1)
Inta
ctsh
ells
inN
aOC
l(6
–14%
acti
vech
lori
ne)
for
(A)
2h
atR
T,(B
)2
hw
ith
ult
raso
un
d,(
C)
24h
wit
hu
ltra
sou
nd
Ace
tic
acid
50%
v/v
over
nig
ht
at4–
6�C
AS
MA
IM2×
Dia
lysi
sLT
Q-F
T/
Max
Qu
ant
gen
om
e.j
gi-
psf.
org
/
An
no
tate
dp
rote
inm
od
els
(23
851)
311
EC
M—
141
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—20
TM
—31
Intr
acel
lula
r—89
Un
kno
wn
—30
Lott
iag
igan
tea
[12]
Sh
ell:
Pris
mat
icC
ross
-la
mel
lar
(1)
M+
2,M
+1,
Man
dM
−1
laye
rsw
ere
cru
shed
into
app
roxi
mat
ely
1-m
m2
frag
men
ts(2
)S
hel
lfra
gm
ents
inN
aOC
l1%
v/v,
24h
.
Ace
tic
acid
5%v/
vov
ern
igh
tat
4�C
un
tilp
H4.
2
AS
MC
entr
ifu
gati
on
Ult
rafi
ltra
tio
nD
ialy
sis
Q-T
OF/
MA
SC
OT
NC
BI
Nu
cleo
tid
es+E
ST
(252
091)
gen
om
e.j
gi-
psf.
org
/
An
no
tate
dp
rote
inm
od
els
(23
851)
39E
CM
—31
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—3
Mem
bra
ne—
3In
trac
ellu
lar—
0U
nkn
ow
n—
2A
IM6
×C
entr
ifu
gati
on
wit
hm
illiQ
wat
er
Ch
ord
ata
Gal
lus
gallu
s[1
8]E
gg
shel
l(1
)Is
ola
ted
egg
shel
lsin
5%E
DTA
and
then
was
hed
wit
hw
ater
.
Ace
tic
acid
10%
v/v
AS
MC
entr
ifu
gati
on
Dia
lysi
sLT
Q-F
T/M
AS
CO
TE
BI
chic
ken
IPIp
rote
inse
qu
ence
dat
abas
e(∼
2577
2)
520
EC
M—
226
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—43
Mem
bra
ne—
75In
trac
ellu
lar—
140
Un
kno
wn
—36
Dan
iore
rio
and
On
corh
ynch
us
myk
iss
[16]
Oto
lith
(1)
Iso
late
do
tolit
hin
0,65
%so
diu
mhy
po
chlo
rite
,th
enso
nic
ated
and
was
hed
wit
hw
ater
.
ED
TAex
cess
ES
Man
dE
ISM
Cen
trif
uga
tio
nU
ltra
filt
rati
on
Q-T
OF/
MA
SC
OT
NC
BI,
En
se
mb
l
Fish
gen
om
es(∼
210
662
6)
8E
CM
—7
EC
M/M
emb
ran
e—0
Mem
bra
ne—
1In
trac
ellu
lar—
0U
nkn
ow
n—
0
Acc
essi
on
nu
mb
ers
of
iden
tifi
edp
rote
ins
wer
eco
llect
edfr
om
the
liter
atu
rean
dco
rres
po
nd
ing
seq
uen
ced
ata
reso
urc
es.
Th
esu
bce
llula
rlo
cati
on
was
pre
dic
ted
by
mea
ns
of
bio
info
rmat
ics
too
ls(h
ttp
://w
ww
.cb
s.d
tu.d
k/se
rvic
es)a
cco
rdin
gto
the
pro
toco
ldes
crib
edin
[17]
.In
bri
ef,p
rote
inse
qu
ence
sw
ere
anal
yzed
wit
hT
arg
etP
,TM
HM
Mfo
rtr
ansm
emb
ran
ed
om
ain
s,S
ign
alP
for
the
pre
sen
ceo
fp
epti
de
sig
nal
s,G
PIf
or
the
pre
sen
ceo
fG
PIa
nch
ors
and
Sec
reto
meP
for
no
ncl
assi
cals
ecre
tio
n.C
om
ple
tep
rote
inse
qu
ence
sw
ith
ou
tp
ote
nti
alse
cret
ory
and
/or
mem
bra
ne
sig
nat
ure
sw
ere
con
sid
ered
intr
acel
lula
rw
ith
ou
tfu
rth
erch
arac
teri
zati
on
of
thei
rp
red
icte
dlo
cati
on
insi
de
the
cell.
As
for
pro
tein
frag
men
ts,l
oca
lizat
ion
was
pre
dic
ted
by
gen
eo
nto
log
yw
hen
avai
lab
leo
rco
nsi
der
edu
nkn
ow
no
ther
wis
e.
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com
Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8 5
Figure 1. Removal of organic contaminants from biomineralizedshell structures of Lymnaea stagnalis. Comparison of the proteinsidentified by proteomics on the skeletal organic matrix under twodifferent conditions. “Simple bleaching” consisted of treating theskeletal fragments with NaOCl solution once (5% v/v, 24 h), whilein “extended bleaching” the “simple bleaching” was followedby complete removal of the entire umbilicus shell portion anda subsequent treatment with NaOCl solution (10% v/v, 5 h) onthe skeletal sieved powder (<200 �m). The acetic acid-solubleand -insoluble matrices were digested with trypsin and were in-jected into a Q-Star XL nano-electrospray quadrupole/TOF tan-dem mass spectrometer then protein identifications were per-formed with the Mascot search engine against specific transcrip-tomic datasets.
The proteomic investigations of SOMPs constitute a valu-able approach to reach this goal, and gradually providefundamental insights on the molecular basis of biomineral-ization [6,10,12]. In practice, only the investigation of genuineSOMPs—directly associated with the mineral phaseformation—such as the example of caspartin, an intracrys-talline protein from Pinna nobilis calcitic prisms, can con-tribute to important fundamental discoveries [19]. Moreover,understanding how these proteins have evolved, by a compar-ative approaches on different models, is also likely to providenew insights into the events that supported the organismevolution [12]. In this specific context, the presence of con-taminating cytoskeletal proteins (e.g. actins, tubulin, myosin,. . . ) and more generally of intracellular components (e.g. hi-stones, ribosomal proteins, . . . ) is particularly misleading.The case of actin, one of the most important cytoskeletal pro-teins, is representative of the problem, since it was includedin the so-called SOMP list from different species [14,20], sug-gesting homologous mechanisms associated with biominer-alization processes without further substantial evidence.
For the proteins presenting obvious transmembrane do-mains, it appears that some of them may also participatein the biomineralization process (Table 1), by means of thedomains that are targeted outside the cell. These extracel-lular regions may potentially act in the mineralizing space
being subsequently cleaved by proteases and occluded in thegrowing biomineral. We present evidences supporting thishypothesis in the works of Ramos-Silva et al. [13, 15]. Thesame scenario is conveniently suggested by Mann et al. [5],when performing a global proteomics analysis on the spiculeorganic matrix of the sea urchin.
Until now, we have considered that the data about ECMcontamination did not deserve to be included in our publica-tions that concerns the identification of biomineral-associatedproteins by proteomics [6, 7, 10, 12, 13], however the mislead-ing interpretation of some potential contaminants describedas SOMPS that are being published in an increasing numberof research articles [9, 11, 14, 20, 21], urge us to inform thescientific community about this issue.
4 Our recommendations on how toanalyze proteins from biomineralizedstructures by proteomics
According to the most commonly accepted view, the forma-tion of the metazoan external calcified structures results fromthe secretion of an acellular matrix that remains occludedwithin the biomineral phase once precipitated. Alternatively,some other calcified structures, such as the sclerites producedby soft corals [20], are formed, in a first step, inside intracel-lular vesicles, then being externalized by exocytosis. Duringthese extracellular and/or confined intracellular processes,cellular contaminants can remain entrapped in the miner-alized structures, such as the microcavities present in somemollusk shell layers (Fig. 2A and B). Besides the specimencellular remains, another noticeable source of contaminationis exogenous and is mostly represented by the microorgan-isms that can grow within the exoskeletal cavities, such as thevarious specific endolith algae of stony corals [22] or the bor-ing groups (bacteria, sponge, or algae) that can live in somemollusk shells.
As a first cleaning step, we recommend to mechanicallyremove (by abrasion or sawing) such “potentially rich incontaminant” zones, in order to minimize contamination,or to critically appreciate the data obtained, when primarilyanalyzing biominerals by proteomics. Considering themicrostructural diversity of bioconstructions producedby living organisms, we recommend the development ofoptimized cleaning methods for the analysis of all newbiomaterials, based on the detailed characterization ofthese microstructures. A bleaching treatment in two stepsmay assure the quality of the proteomic data: first one forremoving most of the superficial contaminants, a secondone for “flushing out” the most occluded ones. For instance,we observed that for some biominerals, only a thoroughincubation of skeleton fine powder (<200 �M)—and notsimply of skeletal fragments—in concentrated NaOCl (10%,5 h), before extraction, was fully efficient at removing con-taminants, leaving intact the skeleton associated proteins,i.e. true SOMPs that are part of the “biomineralization
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com
6 B. Marie et al. Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8
Figure 2. Details of two mollusk shell layers containing void areas that can entrap organic contaminants, as exemplified for the chalkylayer of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas (A) or the bioperforated external prismatic layer of the giant limpet Lottia gigantea (B).These structures potentially entrap endogenous (e.g. cellular debris from the mantle cells) or exogenous (e.g. bacteria or other parasiticmicro-organisms) contaminant organic material.
toolkit” [10,12,13]. We recommend the users to adopt similarcleaning procedures. Rather than using sodium hydroxide orhydrogen peroxide, we recommend NaOCl, which offers thecompromise between being a very effective bleaching agentwithout dissolving the mineral phase [23], but this should betested according to the different biominerals investigated.
Generally, considering the diversity of CaCO3 biominer-als, one should consider that there is not one universal clean-ing protocol for biomineralized structures. Protocols needto be optimized by adjusting the concentration of the clean-ing agent, the duration of the treatment, and the grain sizeof the powder, for proteomic approaches on new biomin-erals. One disadvantage of sample cleaning is that it canalso potentially discard proteins of interest that are “weakly”bound to the mineral phase. However, our previous analy-sis indicates that cytoskeletal and intracellular componentsare the ones that are predominantly removed by NaOCltreatment [13, 15]. Comparative approaches of the samplecleaning procedures would also lead to discriminate betweenbiomineral-associated proteins that are weakly bound aroundthe biomineral without being occluded, and “true” SOMPs,that are specifically integrated inside the mineral phase. Be-side the cleaning procedure, attention should be accorded tothe subsequent analytical steps:
(i) Many known SOMPs present remarkable bias in theiramino acid composition, presence of multiple repeatedlow-complexity domains (RLCDs), higher insolubility,lack of trypsin cleavage sites. This requires the develop-ment of novel protein digestion strategies (e.g. enzyme-,microwave-assisted digestions, or acid hydrolysis) thatallow generating peptides of optimal length for MS/MSanalysis [24].
(ii) It is also worth to note that the specific amino acidcomposition of many SOMP influences the results ofthe peptide-spectrum matches according to chosen frag-mentation technique (CID, higher energy dissociation,electron transfer dissociation), and as well as the perfor-mance of the search engines [25].
(iii) Often, SOMPs present PTMs (e.g. glycosylations, phos-phorylations, . . . ) which can limit the access to the pro-tein cleavage sites, and induce poorer ionization, result-ing in lesser protein identifications. As the amount ofsaccharidic moieties can significantly differ accordingto the investigated species, chemical or enzymatic deg-lycosylation step of biomineral-extracted matrix may berecommended in some cases.
(iv) The completeness of the database for SOMP encodingtranscripts, either from genome or transcriptome as-sembly, is especially critical for the identification of agreater number of SOMPs. The availability of mineral-izing tissue-specific transcriptome datasets representsalso a great advantage. However few examples highlightthat these resources can sometimes be incomplete andnot always sufficient to identify all SOMPs [6, 12].
In addition to the above points, critical analysis of the char-acteristics of the identified proteins is required, which in-cludes the following criteria: the specific expression of theirtranscript in mineralizing tissues, the presence of predictedsignal peptide, and transmembrane- or ecto-domains, theirsequence similarity with other biomineralization proteins,and functional characterization according to experimental ev-idence or, alternatively, to gene ontology determination usingsequence comparison approach.
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com
Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8 7
5 Conclusion
The purpose of this viewpoint is to alert the scientific commu-nity about the proper approach for analyzing skeletal organicmatrix proteins by proteomics, and to get better benefit ofthis approach. Indeed, incorrect interpretation of contami-nants as genuine SOMPs can potentially blur the biologicalpatterns that may emerge from the analysis, and may maskfascinating evolutionary and/or functional trends. From ourviewpoint, contaminations are technically possible to limit,if not to avoid, but require scrupulous and accurate sampletreatments.
Moreover, it is obvious that the use of more and moresensitive MS technologies (e.g. Orbitrap), leads to greaterprotein scoring but also increases the susceptibility to detectassociated contaminants present even in very small amounts,then the limit between true SOMPs present in small amount,and contaminants, would be even more difficult to draw.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Isabelle Zanella-Cleon(Institut de Biologie et de Chimie des Proteines, Lyon France)for the mass spectrometry analysis, Jerome Thomas (Universitede Bourgogne, Dijon, France) for picture processing. Lymnaeastagnalis shells were provided by Dr. Daniel John Jackson fromGottingen University, Germany.
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
6 References
[1] Baeuerlein, E., in: Baeuerlein, E. (Ed.), Handbook ofBiomineralization—Biological Aspects and Structure For-mation, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA, Weinheim,Germany 2007, pp. 1–19.
[2] Killian, C. E., Wilt, F. H., Molecular aspects of biomineraliza-tion of the echinoderm endoskeleton. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108,4463–4474.
[3] Marin, F., Luquet, G., Marie, B., Medakovic, D., Molluscanshell protein: primary structure, origin and evolution. Curr.Top. Dev. Biol. 2008, 80, 209–276.
[4] Marin, F., Marie, B., Benhamada, S., Silva, P., et al., ‘Shel-lome’: proteins involved in mollusk shell biomineralization– diversity, functions, in: Watabe, S., Maeyama, K., Naga-sawa, H. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Pearl Research, Terra-pub, Tokyo, Japan 2013, pp. 149–166.
[5] Mann, K., Wilt, F. H., Poustka, A. J., Proteomic analysis ofsea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) spicule matrix.Proteome Sci. 2010, 8, 33.
[6] Marie, B., Marie, A., Jackson, D., Dubost, L. et al., Proteomicanalysis of the organic matrix of the abalone Haliotis asininacalcified shell. Proteome Sci. 2010, 8, 54.
[7] Joubert, C., Piquemal, D., Marie, B., Manchon, L. et al., Tran-scriptome and proteome analysis of Pinctada margaritiferacalcifying mantle and shell: focus on biomineralization. BMCGenomics 2010, 11, 613.
[8] Berland, S., Marie, A., Duplat, D., Milet, C. et al., Cou-pling proteomics and transcriptomics for the identifica-tion of novel and variant forms of mollusc shell pro-teins: a study with P. margaritifera. Chembiochem. 2011, 12,950–961.
[9] Mann, K., Edsinger-Gonzales, E., Mann, M., In-depth pro-teomic analysis of mollusc shell: acid-soluble and acid-insoluble matrix of the limpet Lottia gigantea. Proteome Sci.2012, 10, 28.
[10] Marie, B., Joubert, C., Tayale, A., Zanella-Cleon, I. et al.,Different secretory repertoires control the biomineraliza-tion processes of prism and nacre deposition of thepearl oyster shell. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109,20986–20991.
[11] Zhang, G., Fang, X., Guo, X., Li, L. et al., The oyster genomereveals stress adaptation and complexity of shell formation.Nature 2012, 490, 49–54.
[12] Marie, B., Jackson, D. J., Ramos-Silva, P., Zanella-Cleon, I.et al., The shell-forming proteome of Lottia gigantea re-veals both deep conservations and lineage-specific novel-ties. FEBS J. 2013, 280, 214–232.
[13] Ramos-Silva, P., Kaandorp, J., Huisman, L., Marie, B. et al.,The skeletal organic matrix of the coral Acropora millepora:the evolution of calcification by cooption and domain shuf-fling. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 2099–2112.
[14] Drake, J. L., Mass, T., Haramaty, L., Zelzion, E. et al., Pro-teomic analysis of skeletal organic matrix from the stonycoral Stylophora pistillata. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013,110, 3788–3793.
[15] Ramos-Silva, P., Marin, F., Kaandorp, J., Marie, B., “Biomin-eralization toolkit”: the importance of sample cleaning priorto the characterization of biomineral proteomes. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110, E2144–E2146.
[16] Kang, Y-J., Stevenson, A. K., Yau, P. M., Kollmar, R., Sparcprotein is required for normal growth of zebrafish otoliths.JARO 2007, 9, 436–451.
[17] Emanuelsson, O., Brunak, S., von Heijne, G., Nielsen, H., Lo-cating proteins in the cell using TargetP, SignalP and relatedtools. Nat. Protoc. 2007, 2, 953–971.
[18] Hincke, M. T., Nys, Y., Gautron, J., Mann, K. et al., Theeggshell: structure, composition and mineralization. Front.Biosci. 2012, 17, 1266–1280.
[19] Pokroy, B., Fitch, A.N., Marin, F., Kapon, M. et al., Anisotropiclattice distorsions in biogenic calcite induced by intra-crystalline organic molecules. J. Struct. Biol. 2006, 155,96–103.
[20] Rahman, M. A., Shinjo, R., Oomori, T., Worheide, G., Analysisof the proteinaceous components of the organic matrix ofcalcitic sclerites from the soft coral Sinularia sp. PLoS One2013, 8, e58781.
[21] Nemoto, M., Wang, Q., Li, D., Pan, S. et al., Proteomic anal-ysis from the mineralized radular teeth of the giant Pacificchiton, Cryptochiton stelleri (Mollusca). Proteomics 2012, 12,2890–2894.
[22] Le Campion-Alsumard, T., Golubic, S., Hutchings, P., Micro-bial endoliths in skeleton of live and dead corals: Porites
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com
8 B. Marie et al. Proteomics 2013, 00, 1–8
lobata (Moorea, French Polynesia). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.1995, 117, 149–157.
[23] Gaffey, S. J., Bronniman, C. E., Effects of bleaching on or-ganic and mineral phases in biogenic carbonates. J. Sed.Petrol. 1993, 63, 752–754.
[24] Bedouet, L., Marie, A., Berland, S., Marie, B. et al., Proteomicstrategy for identifying mollusc shell proteins using mildchemical degradation and trypsin digestion of insoluble or-
ganic shell matrix: a pilot study on Haliotis tuberculata. Mar.Biotechnol. 2011, 14, 446–458.
[25] Marie, A., Alves, S., Marie, B., Dubost, L. et al., Analysis oflow complex region peptides derived from mollusc shell ma-trix proteins using CID, high-energy collisional dissociation,and electron transfer dissociation on an LTQ-Orbitrap: impli-cations for peptide to spectrum match. Proteomics 2012, 12,3069–3075.
C© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.proteomics-journal.com