CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 94

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Metaproteomics to understand how microbiota function: The crystal ball predicts a promising future

Armengaud, Jean·2023·Environmental Microbiology
DOI 10.1111/1462-2920.16238PMC PMC10091800
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the medical, environmental, and biotechnological fields, microbial communities have attracted much attention due to their roles and numerous possible applications. The study of these communities is challenging due to their diversity and complexity. Innovative methods are needed to identify the taxonomic components of individual microbiota, their changes over time, and to determine how microoorganisms interact and function. Metaproteomics is based on the identification and quantification of proteins, and can potentially provide this full picture. Due to the wide molecular panorama and functional insights it provides, metaproteomics is gaining momentum in microbiome and holobiont research. Its full potential should be unleashed in the coming years with progress in speed and cost of analyses. In this exploratory crystal ball exercise, I discuss the technical and conceptual advances in metaproteomics that I expect to drive innovative research over the next few years in microbiology. I also debate the concepts of ‘microbial dark matter’ and ‘Metaproteomics‐Assembled Proteomes (MAPs)’ and present some long‐term prospects for metaproteomics in clinical diagnostics and personalized medicine, environmental monitoring, agriculture, and biotechnology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1462-2920.16238

Cites

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Estimation of the molecular complexity of a human faecal sample. The numbers indicated are derived from published results (Grenga et al., 2022), obtained from 39 human faecal samples analysed in triplicate. The different groups of identified organisms are indicated with the number of entities (×1 for the host) and a list of representative species per group is mentioned. The number of annotated protein‐coding sequences per group (20,383 for the host) is mentioned and their ratios are represented with the external circle. The inner circle shows the protein biomass of each group assessed experimentally by metaproteomics.
FIGURE 1 Estimation of the molecular complexity of a human faecal sample. The numbers indicated are derived from published results (Grenga et al., 2022), obtained from 39 human faecal samples analysed in triplicate. The different groups of identified organisms are indicated with the number of entities (×1 for the host) and a list of representative species per group is mentioned. The number of annotated protein‐coding sequences per group (20,383 for the host) is mentioned and their ratios are represented with the external circle. The inner circle shows the protein biomass of each group assessed experimentally by metaproteomics.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Tentative estimation of the protein and peptide spaces of a human faecal sample. The protein space is directly derived from the number of organisms estimated in Figure 1 and focussed on the most abundant organisms. Peptides are considered with equate I/L as these two residues are indistinguishable by simple mass spectrometry, with an average of 24 peptides per protein without missed‐cleavage and 70 peptides per protein when considering 1 possible missed‐cleavage. An average of 5 variants per peptide sequence is taken into account for synthesized proteins from the 200 most abundant species to obtain the number of peptides & variants.
FIGURE 2 Tentative estimation of the protein and peptide spaces of a human faecal sample. The protein space is directly derived from the number of organisms estimated in Figure 1 and focussed on the most abundant organisms. Peptides are considered with equate I/L as these two residues are indistinguishable by simple mass spectrometry, with an average of 24 peptides per protein without missed‐cleavage and 70 peptides per protein when considering 1 possible missed‐cleavage. An average of 5 variants per peptide sequence is taken into account for synthesized proteins from the 200 most abundant species to obtain the number of peptides & variants.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 Metaproteomics can identify and quantify uncharted branches of the tree of life. Tandem mass spectrometry‐based proteotyping of organisms present in the sample can be based on taxa‐spectrum matches (TSMs) and taxon‐specific peptides (Hardouin et al., 2022; Lozano et al., 2022). In this figure focused on a theoretical archaeal enriched microbial community, the presence of an uncharacterized organism belonging to the Candidatus Lokyarchaeota phylum and another belonging to the Halobacteriales order are indicated, while other organisms characterized at the genus taxonomical rank are also confirmed. These organisms are identified from taxon‐specific peptides and TSMs at the different taxonomical ranks when querying a generalist database such as NCBInr. The ratios of organisms are established based on protein biomass values derived from the TSMs parameter and are reported in percentage compared to the signal interpreted for the phylum taxonomical rank. The values presented are imaginary and serve only to explain the concept. A decrease of TSMs along the taxonomical ranks may be observed due to the phylogenetic distance between the proteins from the organisms present in the sample and those from the organisms listed in the database.
FIGURE 3 Metaproteomics can identify and quantify uncharted branches of the tree of life. Tandem mass spectrometry‐based proteotyping of organisms present in the sample can be based on taxa‐spectrum matches (TSMs) and taxon‐specific peptides (Hardouin et al., 2022; Lozano et al., 2022). In this figure focused on a theoretical archaeal enriched microbial community, the presence of an uncharacterized organism belonging to the Candidatus Lokyarchaeota phylum and another belonging to the Halobacteriales order are indicated, while other organisms characterized at the genus taxonomical rank are also confirmed. These organisms are identified from taxon‐specific peptides and TSMs at the different taxonomical ranks when querying a generalist database such as NCBInr. The ratios of organisms are established based on protein biomass values derived from the TSMs parameter and are reported in percentage compared to the signal interpreted for the phylum taxonomical rank. The values presented are imaginary and serve only to explain the concept. A decrease of TSMs along the taxonomical ranks may be observed due to the phylogenetic distance between the proteins from the organisms present in the sample and those from the organisms listed in the database.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 Clinical and environmental diagnostics by metaproteomics, timelines and applications. A sample‐to‐result timeline is proposed based on previously published results (Hardouin et al., 2022), along with likely optimizations over the next decade. The fields of application of metaproteomics for diagnosis or routine analysis are schematized.
FIGURE 4 Clinical and environmental diagnostics by metaproteomics, timelines and applications. A sample‐to‐result timeline is proposed based on previously published results (Hardouin et al., 2022), along with likely optimizations over the next decade. The fields of application of metaproteomics for diagnosis or routine analysis are schematized.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.9b00606 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2020.07.011 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.mib.2009.03.005 · DOI
  4. 10.1128/JB.180.15.3954-3966.1998 · DOI
  5. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00669 · DOI
  6. 10.1093/nar/gkab786 · DOI
  7. 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c04174 · DOI
  8. Crecy‐Lagard V., 2022, A roadmap for the functional annotation of protein families: a community perspective, Database: The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation, 2022, 10.1093/database/baac062 · DOI
  9. 10.1093/femsyr/foz088 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/s41587-022-01389-w · DOI
  11. 10.1038/s41587-020-0548-6 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1111/1462-2920.14975 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/s41522-020-0133-2 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/1462-2920.16028 · DOI
  15. 10.3390/genes12060892 · DOI
  16. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.975883 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/j.jprot.2020.103887 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/j.tim.2017.11.002 · DOI
  19. 10.3390/cells11081340 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/1462-2920.15673 · DOI
  21. 10.1021/ac303053e · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.mib.2012.04.008 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123679 · DOI
  24. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01883 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2017.06.1201 · DOI
  26. 10.1186/s40168-021-01139-1 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.05.014 · DOI
  28. Kitata R.B., 2022, Advances in data‐independent acquisition mass spectrometry towards comprehe‐nsive digital proteome landscape, Mass Spectrometry Reviews
  29. 10.1016/j.cels.2021.04.003 · DOI
  30. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00260 · DOI
  31. 10.1186/s40168-017-0270-x · DOI
  32. 10.1038/nbt.2942 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1128/msystems.00025-22 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/14789450.2020.1738931 · DOI
  35. 10.1038/s41522-020-0123-4 · DOI
  36. 10.3390/microorganisms10040719 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1007/s11356-018-3341-z · DOI
  38. 10.1073/pnas.0704662104 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.jprot.2017.05.022 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/s41564-020-00827-2 · DOI
  41. 10.1080/14789450.2016.1209418 · DOI
  42. 10.1186/s40168-020-00797-x · DOI
  43. 10.1002/pmic.201500104 · DOI
  44. 10.1128/msystems.00947-21 · DOI
  45. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01369.x · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1038/nature12352 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1016/S0958-1669(97)80151-6 · DOI
  48. 10.1371/journal.pone.0241503 · DOI
  49. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009245 · DOI
  50. 10.1094/MPMI-05-22-0116-TA · DOI
  51. 10.1080/14789450.2019.1609944 · DOI
  52. 10.1002/mas.21346 · DOI
  53. 10.1007/s00248-016-0731-y · DOI
  54. 10.1128/spectrum.00412-22 · DOI
  55. 10.1371/journal.pone.0082981 · DOI
  56. 10.1111/1462-2920.16163 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/1462-2920.14131 · DOI
  58. 10.1186/s40168-021-01176-w · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1038/s41467-021-27542-8 · DOI
  60. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00926 · DOI
  61. 10.1093/nar/gkac294 · DOI
  62. 10.3390/ijms222010992 · DOI
  63. 10.1016/j.tim.2005.12.006 · DOI
  64. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.749874 · DOI
  65. 10.1002/pmic.201400563 · DOI
  66. 10.1080/19490976.2022.2035658 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Armengaud, J.
Affiliations
Département Médicaments et Technologies pour la Santé (DMTS) Université Paris‐Saclay, CEA, INRAE Bagnols‐sur‐Cèze France
ORCID
Armengaud, Jean
Venue
Environmental Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-10-18
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
115-125
ISSN
  • 1462-2912
  • 1462-2920
DOI
10.1111/1462-2920.16238
PMC
PMC10091800
Cited by
94
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR‐20‐CE34‐0012)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review