Next Article in Journal
Increase in IGF-1 Expression in the Injured Infraorbital Nerve and Possible Implications for Orofacial Neuropathic Pain
Next Article in Special Issue
Proteomics Analysis Reveals that Warburg Effect along with Modification in Lipid Metabolism Improves In Vitro Embryo Development under Low Oxygen
Previous Article in Journal
Targeting microRNAs as a Therapeutic Strategy to Reduce Oxidative Stress in Diabetes
Previous Article in Special Issue
The PPARδ Agonist GW501516 Improves Lipolytic/Lipogenic Balance through CPT1 and PEPCK during the Development of Pre-Implantation Bovine Embryos
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 20
Issue 24
10.3390/ijms20246359
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Proteomics Analysis of Early Developmental Stages of Zebrafish Embryos

by
Kathiresan Purushothaman
1,
Prem Prakash Das
2,
Christopher Presslauer
1,
Teck Kwang Lim
2,
Steinar D. Johansen
1,
Qingsong Lin
2,* and
Igor Babiak
1,*
1
Genomics Group, Faculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, Nord University, 8049 Bodø, Norway
2
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Singapore
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20(24), 6359; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20246359
Submission received: 6 November 2019 / Revised: 4 December 2019 / Accepted: 13 December 2019 / Published: 17 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Regulation of Gene Expression During Embryonic Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Zebrafish is a well-recognized organism for investigating vertebrate development and human diseases. However, the data on zebrafish proteome are scarce, particularly during embryogenesis. This is mostly due to the overwhelming abundance of egg yolk proteins, which tend to mask the detectable presence of less abundant proteins. We developed an efficient procedure to reduce the amount of yolk in zebrafish early embryos to improve the Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS)-based shotgun proteomics analysis. We demonstrated that the deyolking procedure resulted in a greater number of proteins being identified. This protocol resulted in approximately 2-fold increase in the number of proteins identified in deyolked samples at cleavage stages, and the number of identified proteins increased greatly by 3–4 times compared to non-deyolked samples in both oblong and bud stages. Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis revealed a high number of functional proteins differentially accumulated in the deyolked versus non-deyolked samples. The most prominent enrichments after the deyolking procedure included processes, functions, and components related to cellular organization, cell cycle, control of replication and translation, and mitochondrial functions. This deyolking procedure improves both qualitative and quantitative proteome analyses and provides an innovative tool in molecular embryogenesis of polylecithal animals, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, or birds.

1. Introduction

Zebrafish have become a prominent and broadly used model system to study developmental biology, neurogenetic disorders, genetics, toxicology, reproduction, pathology, and pharmacology [1,2,3,4,5]. The genome annotation is relatively well developed [6], and the embryonic transcriptome of zebrafish has been characterized in several studies [7,8,9,10,11]. However, knowledge about the comprehensive proteome dynamics during embryogenesis in zebrafish remains elusive.
Proteome in zebrafish is usually investigated in adult organs or tissues [12,13,14,15]. The overwhelming occurrence of vitellogenin yolk proteins is a limiting factor in a polylecithal embryo, such as in zebrafish, as it hinders global identification of less abundant proteins using mass spectrometry-based techniques [4,16]. Proteolytic peptides of yolk proteins can potentially subdue the ionization of the less abundant proteolytic peptides of non-yolk proteins [17,18]. Consequently, abundant yolk proteins can potentially interfere with the identification of cellular proteins, although the degree of such interference is unknown. To reduce the abundance of yolk proteins, deyolking protocols are employed; they have been used in a number of studies on zebrafish embryos and larvae from 3.3 h post-fertilization (hpf) to 7 days post-fertilization (dpf) [16,19,20,21]. In most extensive studies to date, 5267 and 8363 proteins were identified in zebrafish deyolked embryos at 24 hpf [22,23].
So far, all the studies on zebrafish embryonic proteome were conducted on embryos being at a certain developmental advancement, and the information on the early stages, particularly before the maternal-to-zygotic transition (MZT), is missing. Pre-MZT stages of development are characterized by rapid, synchronous cell cycles (cleavages), and the development is driven by maternally-provided factors, including transcriptome and proteome [24]. Therefore, a knowledge of maternal proteome dynamics seems to be essential for understanding the regulation of early embryonic development in zebrafish. We improved the deyolking procedure, allowing the efficient capture and identification of proteins from the onset of development (1-cell stage). The protocol yielded 2 times more identified proteins compared to the non-deyolked counterparts in cleavage stages, and 3–4 times at oblong and bud stages. Also, the protocol caused minimal loss of proteins. Our improved protocol was effective for the subsequent systematic proteomics studies of zebrafish early embryonic development, and it is applicable to studies on other polylecithal animals.

2. Results

2.1. Efficiency of the New Extraction Protocol

Application of the existing deyolking protocol [16] to zebrafish early embryos requires a considerable amount of embryos to be sampled, yet the representation of low-abundance proteins is reduced (unpublished observation). Therefore, we developed an improved protocol. The major differences are related to the timing and temperature of the dechorionation step, separation of the protein pellet from a liquid fraction, and the wash step (Figure 1).
We compared our protocol to the protocols by Link et al. [16], which were based on 1-step deyolking with or without subsequent washing steps. For a fair comparison, we compared the reference 1-step deyolking procedure without washing [16] to our 1-step deyolking procedure without washing, and the reference 1-step deyolking plus double wash procedure [16] to our 3-step deyolking plus single wash procedure.
Both methods resulted in a reduction of yolk proteins, and the washing steps further depleted the protein content. Nevertheless, our new protocol yielded a larger number of unique proteins from a smaller number of embryos. We obtained approximately 1.7-fold increase in protein concentration per embryo sample when applying the 1-step deyolking process. When using our 3-step deyolking + single wash protocol, the protein yields per embryo sample were 3.1- and 2.5-fold higher (1-cell and high stage embryos, respectively) than those obtained with the reference protocols [16] with 1-step deyolking + double wash (Figure 2A). The effective number of 1-cell stage embryos needed to collect a workable amount of protein (30 µg) was approximately 2 or 3 times lower when using our 1-step deyolking or 3-step deyolking + single wash protocols, respectively; for the high stage embryos, this number of embryos was approximately 2 times lower than that of the respective reference protocols (Figure 2B). Also, compared to our new protocol, less amount of proteins was harvested with the reference protocol (Figure 2B).

2.2. Proteome in Deyolked Versus Non-Deyolked Samples

Generally, the amount of extracted total protein per embryo increased with the developmental advancement of the embryo, and the deyolking procedure greatly reduced the protein concentration. However, this reduction was decreasing from over 25-fold in cleavage stages (1-cell, 16-cell, and 32-cell stages) to approximately 15-fold in the bud stage (Table 1).
Analysis of the digested protein samples using the one-dimensional (1D) mass spectrometry (MS)/MS shotgun proteomics approach (1D shotgun) consistently demonstrated that the deyolking procedure resulted in a greater number of proteins being identified (Supplementary File 1). In the non-deyolked samples, the total numbers of proteins identified throughout the developmental stages were relatively consistent, ranging from 338 to 434 proteins identified in the 1-cell and bud stages, respectively. By comparison, the numbers of proteins identified in deyolked samples in all the developmental stages were considerably higher than in the non-deyolked counterparts. In the cleavage stages, these differences were approximately 2-fold, and increased to over 3-fold in the later developmental stages, ranging from 696 to 1687 proteins identified in the 1-cell and bud stages, respectively (Figure 3A, Supplementary File 1). In contrast to the non-deyolked samples, where there was no apparent correlation between the developmental progression and the total number of proteins identified, deyolked samples resulted in a consistent number of proteins identified throughout cleavage stages (1-cell, 16-cell, and 32-cell), which considerably increased in the later developmental stages (Figure 3A). Most of the proteins identified in the non-deyolked samples were also found in the deyolked counterparts (Figure 3A, Supplementary File 1). The number of proteins unique to the non-deyolked samples (that is, not found in the deyolked counterparts) was relatively stable throughout the developmental stages. In contrast, most of the proteins identified in the deyolked samples were unique, meaning that they were not found in the non-deyolked counterparts, and the number of unique proteins apparently increased throughout the embryonic development from the cleavage stages to the bud stage (Figure 3A, Supplementary File 1).
When looking only to the proteins shared between the non-deyolked and deyolked samples, representation of vitellogenin in the deyolked samples was substantially reduced (36–58 times, depending on developmental stage; Supplementary File 2). At the same time, the representation of non-vitellogenin proteins in the deyolked samples was considerably elevated (2–6 times, depending on developmental stage; Supplementary File 3).
Among the 504 proteins unique to non-deyolked samples, most of them were specific to the cleavage stages, and 42 proteins were found in all the developmental stages. By comparison, out of 2129 proteins unique to the deyolked samples, 420 proteins were found in the cleavage stages only, and 266 proteins were found commonly in all the deyolked samples. In contrast to the non-deyolked sample counterparts, a substantial proportion of unique proteins was found in either or both oblong and bud stages. In total, 465 proteins were present in both non-deyolked and deyolked samples across all the developmental stages (Figure 3B, Supplementary File 1).

2.3. Functional Annotations of the Proteome

In both non-deyolked and deyolked samples, the identified proteins were substantially involved in metabolic, ribosome, and biosynthesis of secondary metabolite and proteasome pathways, while enrichments specific to sampling protocol and/or developmental stage were found in certain pathways, such as in proteasome, RNA transport, or thermogenesis pathways (Table 2).
Analysis of representation of the identified proteins annotated to functional Gene Ontology (GO) terms revealed multiple processes, functions, and components overrepresented and underrepresented in both non-deyolked and deyolked samples, with some of them specific to the developmental stage (Figure 4, Supplementary File 4).
To distinguish the effect of the extraction protocol (non-deyolked versus deyolked samples) from the biological features (natural representation of proteins at given developmental stage), we used functional annotations of proteins represented in both non-deyolked and deyolked samples from all the developmental stages as a filtering criterion. In this way, shared GO terms were established by: The same proteins identified in samples from both extraction methods (“Shared” dataset); different proteins in both datasets (“unique ND” and “unique DY” datasets) enriching the same terms; or partially the same and partially different proteins (“Shared” and “unique ND”, “Shared” and “unique DY”, and all the three datasets). Whereas, unique GO terms were established exclusively by proteins from either “unique ND” or “unique DY” datasets.
Clearly, the deyolking procedure yielded a considerable number of unique GO terms, which were not annotated with the proteins identified in the non-deyolked samples (Supplementary File 5). The most prominent, developmentally relevant examples included enrichment in: Cellular component organization, RNA splicing, DNA replication, intracellular transport, cell cycle, translational initiation, and mitochondrial organization, transport, and gene expression (biological process); ATP binding, GTP binding, NADH dehydrogenase activity, ribonucleoprotein complex binding, translation initiation factor activity, ribosome binding, and ligase activity (molecular function); chromosome, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi-associated vesicle, polysome, spliceosomal complex, cytochrome, and mitochondrial ribosome, matrix, and respiratory chains I and II (cellular component). Similarly, underrepresentation in unique GO terms was developmentally relevant, and it included: Cell–cell signaling, chemical synaptic transmission, intracellular signal transduction, and immune response (biological process); DNA-binding transcription factor activity, transcription regulator activity, channel activity, G protein-coupled receptor activity, and kinase activity (molecular function); cell surface, extracellular region, and plasma membrane-bounded cell projection (cellular component). In contrast to the abundance of unique GO terms annotated with the “unique DY” dataset, there were very few unique GO terms associated with “unique ND” dataset, with the most notably enriched terms in molecular function: Carbohydrate binding and endopeptidase regulator activity (Supplementary Files 4 and 5).
A certain number of proteins was unique for a given developmental stage (that is, identified only in a single developmental stage), in both non-deyolked and deyolked samples. Interestingly, significantly enriched GO terms for these proteins were different for non-deyolked and deyolked samples, in all five developmental stages investigated (Supplementary File 6).

3. Discussion

The improved deyolking procedure resulted in a considerably high quantity of the extracted total protein (Figure 2A) We identified 2575 proteins in total. In the study by Link et al. [16], 57 proteins were found, but six of them were not identified, and two proteins had a duplicated ID. We manually retrieved these 50 IDs, and found that 47 (94%) proteins were present in our dataset. Two of the three proteins not found in our dataset were actually Cyprinus carpio and Drosophila melanogaster proteins, but their possible homologues in zebrafish were missing in our dataset as well. We used 3 times less embryos in our procedure (Figure 2B) than in the reference procedure [16]. Consequently, we were able to conduct the proteomics analysis of zygotic and cleavage stages of zebrafish for the first time. Most of the proteins identified in the cleavage stages were unique to these stages of development (786 out of 1494; Figure 2B). This indicates a massive dynamics of zebrafish developmental proteome. It needs to be noted that the protein sequence database, which we did not use for annotating MS data, does not include the sequences of micro-peptides. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the method is suitable for harvesting very small proteins and micro-peptides.
KEGG analysis showed that ribosome, biosynthesis of secondary metabolites, carbon metabolism, and proteasome pathways were detectable in all the samples (Table 2). Also, a number of GO terms were detected in both deyolked and non-deyolked datasets (Supplementary File 5). Nevertheless, we observed a substantial increase in the number of identified unique proteins in the deyolked samples as compared to the non-deyolked counterparts. Consequently, they enriched a number of developmentally relevant GO terms, such as the cell cycle, mitochondrial organization, and functions or translation initiation, which were not enriched in the non-deyolked samples (Supplementary File 5). These functional terms are essential for the proper growth and development of the early stage of embryos [25,26,27,28] Knowledge of developmentally relevant proteome will aid understanding the regulation of early embryonic development. The underrepresented GO terms in the deyolked samples were mainly related to cellular signaling, transcription, G protein-coupled receptor activity, and cell surface (Supplementary File 5). These terms were not found underrepresented in the non-deyolked samples. In contrast to the significant GO terms found uniquely in the deyolked samples, there were very few unique GO terms associated with “unique ND” dataset (Supplementary File 5); this indicates that the presence of many embryonic proteins is masked due to the high abundance of yolk.
The functional annotation of cleavage stage proteome is concordant with the canonical knowledge of the catabolism, cell cycle, subcellular organization, and the transcriptional quiescence of pre-MZT embryos [24,29]. Moreover, our data suggest active translation-related processes in the very early embryos. Since zygotic transcripts are not produced yet [8], maternally-provided mRNAs [30] were used to produce the translational machinery and perform the translation. Quantitative proteome analysis throughout the development would be needed to determine the extent of this process, though.
Although the dechorionation/deyolking procedure generally resulted in a substantial increase in the number of identified proteins, it also resulted in a loss of certain proteins as compared to the non-deyolked counterparts (Figure 3A), similarly to a study on 5 dpf zebrafish larvae [21]. Most of the previous proteomic studies did not address the problem of protein depletion due to the deyolking process, and they only used deyolked embryos for the analyses [16,21,22]. In the present study, approximately 30% of the proteins at cleavage stages and 12% at oblong and bud stages were not identified after the deyolking (Figure 3, Supplementary File 1). The GO analysis revealed that these lost proteins are involved in a number of biological processes (translation, protein folding, and mitochondrial organization), molecular functions (generation of precursor metabolites and energy), and cellular component (ribosome and cytosol; Supplementary File 4). Moreover, developmental stage-unique proteins enrich GO terms different for non-deyolked and deyolked samples, in all investigated developmental stages (Supplementary File 6). Altogether, our results suggest that deyolked and non-deyolked samples should be analyzed in parallel to extract a reliable information on the proteome in embryonic development.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Fish

The samples were collected at the zebrafish facility of the Nord University, Bodo, Norway. The experimental process and husbandry were performed in agreement with the Norwegian Regulation on Animal Experimentation (The Norwegian Animal Protection Act, No. 73 of 20 December 1974). This was certified by the National Animal Research Authority, Norway, General License for Fish Maintenance and Breeding no. 17.
The maintenance of zebrafish was done using an Aquatic Habitats recirculating system (Pentair, Apopka, FL, USA) and following established protocols [31]. The fish were fed newly hatched Artemia sp. nauplii (Pentair) and SDS zebrafish-specific diet (Special Diet Services, Essex, UK) according to the manufacturers’ instruction. The zebrafish used in the experiment were from the AB line.

4.2. Sample Collection

Embryos originated from natural spawning and were collected at five developmental stages (Figure 5). Embryo development was monitored and staged according to Kimmel et al. [32]. For each developmental stage, embryo batches were divided into two variants: Non-deyolked and deyolked. The non-deyolked (intact) embryos were promptly snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and subsequently stored at −80 °C. The deyolked embryo variants went through the process of dechorionation (removal of chorion) and deyolking. Additionally, the 1-cell (0.5 hpf) and high-stage (3.3 hpf) embryos were collected to compare our deyolking protocol with that by [16].

4.3. Dechorionation and Deyolking

Embryos were placed in a Petri dish in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) supplemented with 1.0 mg/mL Pronase (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) [31]. The enzymatic digestion of chorion was performed for 5 min at 37 °C with gentle shaking. Embryos were washed a minimum of 5 times with PBS or until all visible chorion fragments were removed.
The dechorionated embryos were processed using our modified protocol with 3-step deyolking and a single wash. The embryos were transferred to 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes containing 1.0 mL of deyolking buffer (55 mM NaCl, 3.6 mM KCl, and 1.25 mM NaHCO3) and were mechanically disrupted by pipetting repeatedly through a 100 µL tip. The content was gently mixed by inverting the tube several times before centrifugation at 13,000 RPM for 1 min at 4 °C. The supernatant containing the yolk was discarded, and the pellet was re-suspended with the deyolking buffer, vortexed, and centrifuged as above. The procedure was repeated two times. After this, the pellet was re-suspended with 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), vortexed, and centrifuged as above. The supernatant was discarded and the pellet (deyolked embryos) was snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C. Additionally, for comparison of our protocol with that of [16], the dechorionated embryos at 1-cell and high stage were subjected to two types of deyolking protocols reported by Link et al. [16]: (1) 1-step deyolking, and (2) 1-step deyolking with two additional wash steps.

4.4. Protein Extraction

Both intact (non-deyolked) and deyolked embryo samples were lysed by adding 100 µL of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) lysis buffer (1% SDS; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), 0.5 M triethylammonium bicarbonate buffer pH 8.5 (TEAB; Sigma Aldrich), and 1 × Protease Inhibitor cocktail (Thermo Scientific, Rockford, IL, USA)). The tubes were vortexed and incubated at 90 °C for 30 min, then cooled on crushed ice for 5 min. The lysed material was centrifuged at 13,000 RPM for 20 min at 4 °C. The supernatant, containing the proteins, was collected and transferred to a new Eppendorf tube. The total protein concentration was quantified using a Qubit® 3.0 Fluorometer (Invitrogen, Eugene, OR, USA) and the Qubit™ Protein Assay Kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. After the quantification, the samples were freeze-dried (VirTis BenchTop™ K, Warminster, USA) at −80 °C for 18 h before being shipped to the Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore for proteomics analysis.

4.5. Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis

One-dimensional gel electrophoresis was performed to check the efficiency of deyolking protocol, as well as to compare the efficiency of our protocol with the previous ones. Approximately equal concentrations of proteins from each sample were supplemented with 2× SDS loading dye. The samples were denatured by incubation at 95 °C for 10 min and then the proteins were separated by SDS gel electrophoresis (4%–20% Mini-PROTEAN® TGX™ Precast Protein Gels, Bio-Rad, Hercules, California, USA) in SDS running buffer for 1 h. Afterwards, the gel was washed with deionized water for 10 min. The gel was stained with Coomassie Blue (Coomassie Brilliant Blue R-250, Bio-Rad) for 20 min, and de-stained with de-staining solution (40% methanol + 10% acetic acid) overnight at room temperature.

4.6. Tube-Gel Digestion and Sample Clean up

For each sample, 30 μg of proteins were used for downstream proteomics analyses. The samples were polymerized in a 10% polyacrylamide gel containing 4% SDS and subsequently fixed with a fixing reagent (50% methanol, 12% acetic acid) for 30 min at room temperature. The gel was cut into small pieces (1 mm3) before being washed three times with 50 mM TEAB/50 % acetonitrile (v/v) and dehydrated with 100% acetonitrile. Next, samples were reduced using 5 mM Tris(2-carboxyethyl) phosphine (TCEP) at 57 °C for 60 min, followed by alkylation with 10 mM methyl methanethiosulfonate (MMTS) for 60 min at room temperature with occasional vortexing. The gel pieces were washed in 500 μL of 50 mM TEAB, dehydrated in 500 μL acetonitrile, and re-hydrated with 500 μL of 50 mM TEAB. The final dehydration step was performed using 100 μL acetonitrile. Trypsinization (1.5 μg trypsin) was performed at 37 °C for 16 h. The digested peptides were centrifuged at 6000× g for 10 min to collect the supernatant and stored at −20 °C (protocol modified from [17]. The samples were lyophilized and 30 μL of the dissolution buffer (0.5 M TEAB, pH 8.5) was added to each sample.

4.7. 1D LC–MS/MS Analysis

The separation of peptides was performed with an Eksigent nanoLC Ultra and ChiPLC-nanoflex (Eksigent, Dublin, CA, USA) in Trap-Elute configuration. The samples were desalted with a Sep-Pak tC 18 μL Elution Plate (Waters, Miltford, MA, USA), and reconstituted using 20 μL of 2% acetonitrile and 0.05% formic acid. Five microliters (μL) of each sample was loaded on a 200 μm × 0.5 mm trap column and eluted on a 75 μm × 15 cm analytical column (ChromXP C18-CL, 3 μm). A gradient formed by mobile phase A (2% acetonitrile, 0.1% formic acid) and mobile phase B (98% acetonitrile, 0.1% formic acid) was used to separate the sample content at a 0.3 μL/min flow rate. The following gradient elution was used for peptide separation: 0–5% of mobile phase B in 1 min, 5–12% of mobile phase B in 15 min, 12–30% of mobile phase B in 104 min, 30–90% of mobile phase B in 2 min, 90–90% in 7 min, 90–5% in 3 min and held at 5% of mobile phase B for 13 min (protocol modified from [33]).

4.8. Protein Identification and Quantification

Peptide identification was carried out with the ProteinPilot 5.0 software Revision 4769 (AB SCIEX) using the Paragon database search algorithm (5.0.0.0.4767) and the integrated false discovery rate (FDR) analysis function. The data were searched against protein sequence databases downloaded from UniProt on May 2018 (total 119,356 entries). The MS/MS spectra obtained were searched using the following user-defined search parameters: Sample Type: Identification; Cysteine Alkylation: MMTS; Digestion: Trypsin; Instrument: TripleTOF5600; Special Factors: None; Species: None; ID Focus: Biological Modification; Database for 2018_May_uniprot-zebrafish.fasta; Search Effort: Thorough; FDR Analysis: Yes. The MS/MS spectra were searched against a decoy database to estimate FDR for peptide identification. The decoy database consisted of reversed protein sequences from the UniProt zebrafish database. FDR analysis was performed on the dataset and peptides identified with a confidence interval ≥95% were taken into account.

4.9. KEGG and Gene Ontology (GO) Functional Pathways Analysis

To analyse functional pathways associated with protein identified from deyolked and non-deyolked samples, KEGG analysis was performed. The FASTA files were submitted to online server “KAAS - KEGG Automatic Annotation Server” (https://www.genome.jp/kegg/kaas/) in order to get KEGG Orthology (KO) assignments [34]. To map KEGG pathways, the obtained KO numbers were submitted to KEGG mapper web server (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/tool/map_pathway2.html) [35].
GO annotation results and pathway of differentially expressed proteins in pairwise comparisons were obtained using Panther (Panther14.0, 2018_04) [36]. The web conversion tool (https://biodbnet-abcc.ncifcrf.gov) was used to convert unmapped UniProt Accession IDs to ZFIN ID. The web tool Biomart was used to convert unmapped ZFIN IDs to Gene stable ID and to manually identify the unmapped IDs by gene names [37]. UniProt was used to identify protein IDs discontinued (deleted) in the 2018_11 release [38].

5. Conclusions

We established an effective deyolking procedure for the proteome analysis of the early stages of zebrafish embryos. Elimination of most of the yolk from early stages of embryos significantly enhanced the identification of cellular proteins with LC–MS-based shotgun proteomics analysis. The improved protocol is applicable to low-input material, enabling investigation of the earliest stages of development. Also, we demonstrated that the deyolking procedure results in the depletion of certain parts of the proteome that can be important in embryonic development. Thus, we suggest that both deyolked and non-deyolked samples should be processed in parallel to ensure a reliable coverage of the proteome during the embryogenesis. Our deyolking procedure will improve both qualitative and quantitative proteome analyses throughout embryonic development of polylecithal animals, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/20/24/6359/s1. Supplementary File S1. Complete list of proteins identified in the study. DY, deyolked samples; ND, non-deyolked samples; 1-cell, 16-cell, 32-cell, oblong, and bud stages of development were sampled; Supplementary File S2. Relative quantification of vitellogenin detected in non-deyolked and deyolked samples; Supplementary File S3. Relative quantification of non-vitellogenin proteins shared between non-deyolked and deyolked samples; Supplementary File S4. Gene ontology analyses of DY- deyolked samples; ND- non-deyolked; SH- shared samples; 1-cell, 16-cell, 32-cell, oblong and bud stages of embryos; Supplementary File S5. Gene ontology terms significantly overrepresented and underrepresented: Unique for the protein extraction method (non-deyolked or deyolked), or common for the two methods; Supplementary File S6. List and relative quantification of proteins unique for each developmental stage, and Gene Ontology analysis of terms overrepresented and underrepresented.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.B., Q.L., and S.D.J.; methodology, K.P., C.P., and P.P.D.; validation, K.P., P.P.D., T.K.L., Q.L., and I.B.; formal analysis, K.P., T.K.L., P.P.D., Q.L., and I.B.; investigation, K.P., T.K.L., and P.P.D.; resources, I.B. and Q.L.; writing—original draft preparation, K.P.; writing—review and editing, all; visualization, K.P., C.P., and I.B.; supervision, I.B., S.D.J., and Q.L.; project administration, I.B. and Q.L.; funding acquisition, I.B. and Q.L.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Council of Norway, InnControl project (grant #275786, granted to I.B.), Nord University (scholarship for K.P.), and Protein and Proteomics Centre, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore (granted to Q.L.).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Felix Müller, Research Fellow at Nord University, who helped in embryo collections. K.P. wishes to thank Nord University for funding the PhD scholarship and travel grant.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

NDNon-deyolked
DYDeyolked
SHShared
iTRAQIsobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitation
LC–MS/MSLiquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry
1D LC–MS/MSOne-dimension liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry
MZTMaternal-to-zygotic transition
PBSPhosphate-buffered saline
SDS Sodium dodecyl sulfate
TCEP Tris-(2-carboxyethyl) phosphine
MMTS Methyl methane-thiosulfonate
TEAB Triethylammonium bicarbonate
ACN Acetonitrile
FDR False discovery rate
COG Clusters of orthologous groups
GO Gene Ontology
KEGGKyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

References

  1. Amsterdam, A.; Hopkins, N. Mutagenesis strategies in zebrafish for identifying genes involved in development and disease. Trends Genet. 2006, 22, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Brownlie, A.; Donovan, A.; Pratt, S.J.; Paw, B.H.; Oates, A.C.; Brugnara, C.; Witkowska, H.E.; Sassa, S.; Zon, L.I. Positional cloning of the zebrafish sauternes gene: A model for congenital sideroblastic anaemia. Nat. Genet. 1998, 20, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Grosser, T.; Yusuff, S.; Cheskis, E.; Pack, M.A.; FitzGerald, G.A. Developmental expression of functional cyclooxygenases in zebrafish. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002, 99, 8418–8423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Gündel, U.; Benndorf, D.; von Bergen, M.; Altenburger, R.; Küster, E. Vitellogenin cleavage products as indicators for toxic stress in zebra fish embryos: A proteomic approach. Proteom. 2007, 7, 4541–4554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hanisch, K.; Küster, E.; Altenburger, R.; Gündel, U. Proteomic signatures of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryo: Sensitivity and specificity in toxicity assessment of chemicals. Int. J. Proteom. 2010. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Howe, K.; Clark, M.D.; Torroja, C.F.; Torrance, J.; Berthelot, C.; Muffato, M.; Collins, J.E.; Humphray, S.; McLaren, K.; Matthews, L. The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature 2013, 496, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Aanes, H.; Winata, C.L.; Lin, C.H.; Chen, J.P.; Srinivasan, K.G.; Lee, S.G.; Lim, A.Y.; Hajan, H.S.; Collas, P.; Bourque, G. Zebrafish mRNA sequencing deciphers novelties in transcriptome dynamics during maternal to zygotic transition. Genome. Res. 2011, 21, 1328–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Heyn, P.; Kircher, M.; Dahl, A.; Kelso, J.; Tomancak, P.; Kalinka, A.T.; Neugebauer, K.M. The earliest transcribed zygotic genes are short, newly evolved, and different across species. Cell Rep. 2014, 6, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Mehjabin, R.; Xiong, L.; Huang, R.; Yang, C.; Chen, G.; He, L.; Liao, L.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, Y. Full-Length Transcriptome Sequencing and the Discovery of New Transcripts in the Unfertilized Eggs of Zebrafish (Danio rerio). G3 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Nudelman, G.; Frasca, A.; Kent, B.; Sadler, K.C.; Sealfon, S.C.; Walsh, M.J.; Zaslavsky, E. High resolution annotation of zebrafish transcriptome using long-read sequencing. Genome. Res. 2018, 28, 1415–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. White, R.J.; Collins, J.E.; Sealy, I.M.; Wali, N.; Dooley, C.M.; Digby, Z.; Stemple, D.L.; Murphy, D.N.; Billis, K.; Hourlier, T. A high-resolution mRNA expression time course of embryonic development in zebrafish. Elife 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. De Souza, A.G.; Mac Cormack, T.J.; Wang, N.; Li, L.; Goss, G.G. Large-scale proteome profile of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) gill for physiological and biomarker discovery studies. Zebrafish 2009, 6, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Groh, K.J.; Nesatyy, V.J.; Segner, H.; Eggen, R.I.; Suter, M.J.-F. Global proteomics analysis of testis and ovary in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2011, 37, 619–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Singh, S.K.; Sundaram, C.S.; Shanbhag, S.; Idris, M.M. Proteomic profile of zebrafish brain based on two-dimensional gel electrophoresis matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization MS/MS analysis. Zebrafish 2010, 7, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zhang, J.; Lanham, K.A.; Peterson, R.E.; Heideman, W.; Li, L. Characterization of the adult zebrafish cardiac proteome using online pH gradient strong cation exchange-RP 2D LC coupled with ESI MS/MS. J. Sep. Sci. 2010, 33, 1462–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Link, V.; Shevchenko, A.; Heisenberg, C.-P. Proteomics of early zebrafish embryos. Bmc. Dev. Biol. 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Lu, W.; Yin, X.; Liu, X.; Yan, G.; Yang, P. Response of peptide intensity to concentration in ESI-MS-based proteome. Sci. China Chem. 2014, 57, 686–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vaidyanathan, S.; Kell, D.B.; Goodacre, R. Selective detection of proteins in mixtures using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry: Influence of instrumental settings and implications for proteomics. Anal. Chem. 2004, 76, 5024–5032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lucitt, M.B.; Price, T.S.; Pizarro, A.; Wu, W.; Yocum, A.K.; Seiler, C.; Pack, M.A.; Blair, I.A.; FitzGerald, G.A.; Grosser, T. Analysis of the zebrafish proteome during embryonic development. Mol. Cell Proteom. 2008, 7, 981–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Rahlouni, F.; Szarka, S.; Shulaev, V.; Prokai, L. A Survey of the Impact of Deyolking on Biological Processes Covered by Shotgun Proteomic Analyses of Zebrafish Embryos. Zebrafish 2015, 12, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tay, T.L.; Lin, Q.; Seow, T.K.; Tan, K.H.; Hew, C.L.; Gong, Z. Proteomic analysis of protein profiles during early development of the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Proteomics 2006, 6, 3176–3188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shaik, A.A.; Wee, S.; Li, R.H.X.; Li, Z.; Carney, T.J.; Mathavan, S.; Gunaratne, J. Functional mapping of the zebrafish early embryo proteome and transcriptome. J. Proteome Res. 2014, 13, 5536–5550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lößner, C.; Wee, S.; Ler, S.G.; Li, R.H.; Carney, T.; Blackstock, W.; Gunaratne, J. Expanding the zebrafish embryo proteome using multiple fractionation approaches and tandem mass spectrometry. Proteomics 2012, 12, 1879–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tadros, W.; Lipshitz, H.D. The maternal-to-zygotic transition: A play in two acts. Development 2009, 136, 3033–3042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Gong, Y.; Mo, C.; Fraser, S.E. Planar cell polarity signalling controls cell division orientation during zebrafish gastrulation. Nature 2004, 430, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sugiyama, M.; Sakaue-Sawano, A.; Iimura, T.; Fukami, K.; Kitaguchi, T.; Kawakami, K.; Okamoto, H.; Higashijima, S.-i.; Miyawaki, A. Illuminating cell-cycle progression in the developing zebrafish embryo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 20812–20817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Artuso, L.; Romano, A.; Verri, T.; Domenichini, A.; Argenton, F.; Santorelli, F.M.; Petruzzella, V. Mitochondrial DNA metabolism in early development of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2012, 1817, 1002–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sun, J.; Yan, L.; Shen, W.; Meng, A. Maternal Ybx1 safeguards zebrafish oocyte maturation and maternal-to-zygotic transition by repressing global translation. Development 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Lee, M.T.; Bonneau, A.R.; Giraldez, A.J. Zygotic genome activation during the maternal-to-zygotic transition. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2014, 30, 581–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lubzens, E.; Bobe, J.; Young, G.; Sullivan, C.V. Maternal investment in fish oocytes and eggs: The molecular cargo and its contributions to fertility and early development. Aquaculture 2017, 472, 107–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Westerfield, M. A guide for the laboratory use of zebrafish (Danio rerio). The Zebrafish Book 2000, 4. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kimmel, C.B.; Ballard, W.W.; Kimmel, S.R.; Ullmann, B.; Schilling, T.F. Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev. Dyn. 1995, 203, 253–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Suriyanarayanan, T.; Qingsong, L.; Kwang, L.T.; Mun, L.Y.; Seneviratne, C.J. Quantitative proteomics of strong and weak biofilm formers of Enterococcus faecalis reveals novel regulators of biofilm formation. Mol. Cell Proteom. 2018, 17, 643–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Moriya, Y.; Itoh, M.; Okuda, S.; Yoshizawa, A.C.; Kanehisa, M. KAAS: An automatic genome annotation and pathway reconstruction server. Nucleic. Acids Res. 2007, 35, W182–W185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Kanehisa, M.; Sato, Y.; Kawashima, M.; Furumichi, M.; Tanabe, M. KEGG as a reference resource for gene and protein annotation. Nucleic. Acids Res. 2015, 44, D457–D462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Mi, H.; Huang, X.; Muruganujan, A.; Tang, H.; Mills, C.; Kang, D.; Thomas, P.D. PANTHER version 11: Expanded annotation data from Gene Ontology and Reactome pathways, and data analysis tool enhancements. Nucleic. Acids Res. 2016, 45, D183–D189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Zerbino, D.R.; Achuthan, P.; Akanni, W.; Amode, M.R.; Barrell, D.; Bhai, J.; Billis, K.; Cummins, C.; Gall, A.; Girón, C.G.; et al. Ensembl 2018. Nucleic. Acids Res. 2017, 46, D754–D761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Apweiler, R.; Bairoch, A.; Wu, C.H.; Barker, W.C.; Boeckmann, B.; Ferro, S.; Gasteiger, E.; Huang, H.; Lopez, R.; Magrane, M. UniProt: The universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic. Acids Res. 2004, 32, D115–D119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 20 06359 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of major differences between the reference [16] and the current deyolking protocols. The detailed information is given in the text.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of major differences between the reference [16] and the current deyolking protocols. The detailed information is given in the text.
Ijms 20 06359 g001
Ijms 20 06359 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of the efficiencies of deyolking protocols: reference [16] versus the new one. (A) Protein concentration obtained using protocols in 1-step versions (left chart) and in full versions (right chart). (B) SDS-PAGE of proteins extracted from zebrafish embryos at 1-cell stage (left panel) and high stage (right panel) using the reference protocols versus new protocols. Lane 1—non-deyolked embryo (control); Lane 2—1-step deyolking reference protocol [16]; Lane 3—1-step deyolking + double wash reference protocol [16]; Lane 4—1-step deyolking (new method); and Lane 5—3-step deyolking + single wash (new method). At the bottom line, number of embryos is given for each sample, from which the proteins were extracted.
Figure 2. Comparison of the efficiencies of deyolking protocols: reference [16] versus the new one. (A) Protein concentration obtained using protocols in 1-step versions (left chart) and in full versions (right chart). (B) SDS-PAGE of proteins extracted from zebrafish embryos at 1-cell stage (left panel) and high stage (right panel) using the reference protocols versus new protocols. Lane 1—non-deyolked embryo (control); Lane 2—1-step deyolking reference protocol [16]; Lane 3—1-step deyolking + double wash reference protocol [16]; Lane 4—1-step deyolking (new method); and Lane 5—3-step deyolking + single wash (new method). At the bottom line, number of embryos is given for each sample, from which the proteins were extracted.
Ijms 20 06359 g002
Ijms 20 06359 g003 550
Figure 3. Numbers of proteins identified in samples from intact (non-deyolked, ND) versus deyolked (DY) zebrafish embryos. Unique proteins were found in either ND or DY embryos, whereas shared proteins were found in both ND and DY embryos. (A) Total number of unique and shared proteins in ND (left column) and DE embryos (right column) at 1-cell, 16-cell, 32-cell, oblong, and bud developmental stages. (B) Specificity and overlap of the identified proteins across the critical stages of early embryonic development: Cleavage stages (1-, 16-, and 32-cell stages combined), maternal–zygotic transition (oblong), and post-maternal–zygotic transition (bud).
Figure 3. Numbers of proteins identified in samples from intact (non-deyolked, ND) versus deyolked (DY) zebrafish embryos. Unique proteins were found in either ND or DY embryos, whereas shared proteins were found in both ND and DY embryos. (A) Total number of unique and shared proteins in ND (left column) and DE embryos (right column) at 1-cell, 16-cell, 32-cell, oblong, and bud developmental stages. (B) Specificity and overlap of the identified proteins across the critical stages of early embryonic development: Cleavage stages (1-, 16-, and 32-cell stages combined), maternal–zygotic transition (oblong), and post-maternal–zygotic transition (bud).
Ijms 20 06359 g003
Ijms 20 06359 g004 550
Figure 4. Significantly (false discovery rate (FDR) <0.05) enriched Gene Ontology (GO) terms from SLIM analysis for unique deyolked, unique non-deyolked, and shared proteins grouped by biological process, molecular function, and cellular component. Representation of GO terms containing a minimum 100 reference genes and a fold change ≥4 or ≤4 is given.
Figure 4. Significantly (false discovery rate (FDR) <0.05) enriched Gene Ontology (GO) terms from SLIM analysis for unique deyolked, unique non-deyolked, and shared proteins grouped by biological process, molecular function, and cellular component. Representation of GO terms containing a minimum 100 reference genes and a fold change ≥4 or ≤4 is given.
Ijms 20 06359 g004
Ijms 20 06359 g005 550
Figure 5. Developmental stages of zebrafish embryos sampled in the present study. hpf = hours post-fertilization at 28.5 °C.
Figure 5. Developmental stages of zebrafish embryos sampled in the present study. hpf = hours post-fertilization at 28.5 °C.
Ijms 20 06359 g005
Table
Table 1. The amount of protein extracted from deyolked versus non-deyolked embryos.
Table 1. The amount of protein extracted from deyolked versus non-deyolked embryos.
Developmental StageNumber of EmbryosTotal Sample Volume (µL)Amount of Extracted Protein (µg)
TotalPer µLPer Embryo
Non-deyolked
1-cell28119395.083.3214.11
16-cell2088327.363.7216.37
32-cell40170697.004.1017.42
Oblong20120478.803.9923.94
Bud2092524.405.7026.22
Deyolked
1-cell57594304.563.240.53
16-cell30058191.413.300.63
32-cell40099277.222.810.69
Oblong22542246.545.871.09
Bud25070413.705.911.65
Table
Table 2. Significant (p < 0.05) pathways identified by Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis of proteins from non-deyolked (ND) cleavage, oblong, and bud stage zebrafish embryos, and their deyolked (DY) counterparts. Numbers of proteins mapped to annotated pathways are given.
Table 2. Significant (p < 0.05) pathways identified by Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis of proteins from non-deyolked (ND) cleavage, oblong, and bud stage zebrafish embryos, and their deyolked (DY) counterparts. Numbers of proteins mapped to annotated pathways are given.
Pathway NameND-Cleavage Stage-UniqueND- Oblong & Bud Stages UniqueND-Common in All StagesDY-Cleavage Stage UniqueDY-Oblong & Bud Stages UniqueDY-Common in All StagesShared Proteins
map01100 Metabolic pathways 2223666628769
map03010 Ribosome 2711221191152
map01110 Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites 1211321252732
map04714 Thermogenesis 2612863720
map01200 Carbon metabolism 66110122123
map04141 Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum 4005141120
map03050 Proteasome 1441115014
map00010 Glycolysis / Gluconeogenesis 63026612
map00071 Fatty acid degradation 31091119
map01212 Fatty acid metabolism 83070108
map04530 Tight junction 55261327
map03013 RNA transport 70032216
map04110 Cell cycle 92031215
map04810 Regulation of actin cytoskeleton 51161214
map04144 Endocytosis 30031064
map00230 Purine metabolism 55121114
map03018 RNA degradation 3000814
map04210 Apoptosis 0414514
map00970 Aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis 21181213
map03030 DNA replication 43001403

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Purushothaman, K.; Das, P.P.; Presslauer, C.; Lim, T.K.; Johansen, S.D.; Lin, Q.; Babiak, I. Proteomics Analysis of Early Developmental Stages of Zebrafish Embryos. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 6359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20246359

AMA Style

Purushothaman K, Das PP, Presslauer C, Lim TK, Johansen SD, Lin Q, Babiak I. Proteomics Analysis of Early Developmental Stages of Zebrafish Embryos. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2019; 20(24):6359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20246359

Chicago/Turabian Style

Purushothaman, Kathiresan, Prem Prakash Das, Christopher Presslauer, Teck Kwang Lim, Steinar D. Johansen, Qingsong Lin, and Igor Babiak. 2019. "Proteomics Analysis of Early Developmental Stages of Zebrafish Embryos" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20, no. 24: 6359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20246359

APA Style

Purushothaman, K., Das, P. P., Presslauer, C., Lim, T. K., Johansen, S. D., Lin, Q., & Babiak, I. (2019). Proteomics Analysis of Early Developmental Stages of Zebrafish Embryos. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(24), 6359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20246359

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop