Comparison of quenching and extraction methodologies for metabolome analysis of Lactobacillus plantarum.
BACKGROUND
A reliable quenching and metabolite extraction method has been developed for Lactobacillus plantarum. The energy charge value was used as a critical indicator for fixation of metabolism.


RESULTS
Four different aqueous quenching solutions, all containing 60% of methanol, were compared for their efficiency. Only the solutions containing either 70 mM HEPES or 0.85% (w/v) ammonium carbonate (pH 5.5) caused less than 10% cell leakage and the energy charge of the quenched cells was high, indicating rapid inactivation of the metabolism.The efficiency of extraction of intracellular metabolites from cell cultures depends on the extraction methods, and is expected to vary between micro-organisms. For L. plantarum, we have compared five different extraction methodologies based on (i) cold methanol, (ii) perchloric acid, (iii) boiling ethanol, (iv) chloroform/methanol (1:1) and (v) chloroform/water (1:1). Quantification of representative intracellular metabolites showed that the best extraction efficiencies were achieved with cold methanol, boiling ethanol and perchloric acid.


CONCLUSIONS
The ammonium carbonate solution was selected as the most suitable quenching buffer for metabolomics studies in L. plantarum because (i) leakage is minimal, (ii) the energy charge indicates good fixation of metabolism, and (iii) all components are easily removed during freeze-drying. A modified procedure based on cold methanol extraction combined good extractability with mild extraction conditions and high enzymatic inactivation. These features make the combination of these quenching and extraction protocols very suitable for metabolomics studies with L. plantarum.
Faijes
Magda
M
TI Food & Nutrition, PO Box 557, 6700 AN Wageningen, The Netherlands. eddy.smid@nizo.nl.
Mars
Astrid E
AE
Smid
Eddy J
EJ
J Biotechnol. 2000 Jan 28;77(1):17-23
10674211
J Biol Chem. 2006 Dec 29;281(52):40041-8
17062565
Anal Biochem. 2004 Apr 1;327(1):135-9
15033521
Scand J Infect Dis. 2003;35(6-7):365-7
12953945
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2005 Apr;16(2):190-7
15831386
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;70(7):4286-92
15240312
Biotechnol Lett. 2007 Jan;29(1):1-16
17091378
Anal Biochem. 2003 Feb 1;313(1):145-54
12576070
FEMS Yeast Res. 2005 Feb;5(4-5):419-30
15691747
Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 1996;54:75-108
8623615
Anal Biochem. 1992 Jul;204(1):118-23
1514678
Phytochemistry. 2003 Mar;62(6):929-37
12590120
Anal Chem. 2007 May 15;79(10):3843-9
17411014
Biochemistry. 1968 Nov;7(11):4030-4
4972613
Yeast. 1997 Nov;13(14):1347-55
9392079
J Appl Microbiol. 2005;98(6):1326-31
15916646
J Microbiol Methods. 2006 Feb;64(2):207-16
15982764
Anal Chem. 2006 Feb 15;78(4):1272-81
16478122
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Jan;4(1):46-56
16357860
Biotechnol Bioeng. 1999 May 5;63(3):356-62
10099615
Eur J Biochem. 2003 Jun;270(12):2622-6
12787028
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 18;100(4):1990-5
12566566
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Jan;69(1):241-51
12514001
Anal Chem. 2006 Sep 15;78(18):6573-82
16970336
J Bacteriol. 1997 Sep;179(17):5282-7
9286977
Biotechnol Bioeng. 1997 Nov 20;56(4):398-421
18642243
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2001 Nov 20;75(4):406-15
11668440
Anal Biochem. 2001 Aug 15;295(2):129-37
11488613
Anal Biochem. 1999 May 15;270(1):88-96
10328769
Eur J Biochem. 2000 Aug;267(16):5136-41
10931197
Anal Biochem. 1986 Nov 15;159(1):73-81
3028213
J Bacteriol. 1987 Apr;169(4):1460-8
3558320
Biotechnol Bioeng. 1997 Jul 20;55(2):305-16
18636489
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1973 Jun 21;306(3):412-21
4353706