4.7 Article

Analysis of grape berry cell wall proteome: A comparative evaluation of extraction methods

Journal

JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 165, Issue 13, Pages 1379-1389

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2007.10.011

Keywords

cell wall; LC-ESI-MS/MS; proteomics; two-dimensional get electrophoresis; Vitis vinifera

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different methods were tested for the extraction of proteins from the cell wall-enriched fraction (CWEf) obtained from a sample formed by skin and seeds of ripe berries of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. The CWEf was isolated using a disruptive approach that involves tissue homogenization and precipitation by centrifugation. To extract proteins, the CWEf was treated with CaCl2 and LiCl in two successive steps or, alternatively, with phenol. The efficiency of the protocols was evaluated by measuring protein yield and by analyzing two-dimensional get electrophoresis (2-DE) gets for the highest detectable spot number and the greatest spot resolution. The phenol method was also adopted for the extraction of proteins from the cytosolic fraction (CYf). The comparison of 2-DE reference maps of protein extracts from CWEf and CYf indicated the presence of both common traits and unique characteristics. To survey this aspect some spots detected in both fractions or present in only one fraction were analyzed by liquid chromatography electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS/MS). Of the 47 spots identified, some were found to be cell wait proteins, while others were proteins not traditionally considered as localized in the apoplastic space. The data presented here provide initial information regarding the apoptastic proteome of grape berry tissues, but also raise the issue of the technical. problems that characterize the isolation of cell watt proteins from these very hardy tissues. (C) 2007 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available