Back

Characterization of the biofilm landscape of Bacillus subtilis by spatial microproteomics

Zemaitis, K. J.; Zhou, M.; Yannarell, S. M.; Fulcher, J. M.; Bhattacharjee, A.; Velickovic, M.; Degnan, D. J.; Shank, E. A.; Anderton, C. R.; Kew, W.; Pasa-Tolic, L.; Velickovic, D.

2026-02-03 microbiology
10.64898/2026.02.02.702398 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Bulk proteomics has been demonstrated to differentiate subpopulations within bacterial colonies, yet advanced analyses by mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) hold even greater promise for the future. This technology can enable high-throughput spatial phenotyping that can reshape biological discovery by providing visualization of components of various biomolecular mechanisms. With high mass resolving power and high spatial resolution analyses being routine, we can confidently enable intact protein imaging directly from samples with minimal preparation. Pairing those analyses with bulk experimental libraries can provide high confidence in annotations of post-translational modifications (PTMs) and truncations. Revealing PTM localization within the samples unlocks a direct window into unknown biology at the microscale. However, top-down proteomics (TDP) is not commonplace for microbial species, largely due to challenges in identifying detected peptides and proteins; considering the theoretical proteome of even the well-studied model bacterium Bacillus subtilis was only partially mapped recently. With little still known about the form and function of many of these proteins - let alone proteoforms, where PTMs and truncations of the same protein may possess unique physiological roles - there is a wealth of work to be done. Here we jointly apply TDP and MSI to describe the microscale spatial proteomic landscape within B. subtilis and further demonstrate the feasibility of detecting differentiated subpopulations through proteoforms across the biofilm landscape.

Published in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry (predicted rank #18) · training set

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.