4.5 Article

Evaluation of three different protocols of protein extraction for Arabidopsis thaliana leaf proteome analysis by two-dimensional electrophoresis

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages 461-472

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2008.06.012

Keywords

Arabidopsis leaf proteome; Plant proteomics; Two-dimensional electrophoresis based proteomics

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [BIO-2006-14790]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work was performed to compare three precipitation protocols of protein extraction for 2-DE proteomic analysis using Arabidopsis leaf tissue: TCA-acetone, phenol, and TCA-acetone-phenol. There were no statistically significant differences in protein yield between the three methods. Samples were subjected to 2-DE in the 5 to 8 pH and 14-80 kDa ranges. The TCA-acetone-phenol protocol provided the best results in terms of spot focusing, resolved spots, spot intensity, unique spots detected, and reproducibility. In all, 93 qualitative or quantitative statistically significant differential spots were found between the three protocols. The 2-DE map of TCA-acetone-phenol extracts presented more resolved spots above 40 kDa, with no pI-dependent differences observed between the three protocols. 54 spots were selected for trypsin digestion, and the peptides were analyzed by MALDI-TOF-TOF MS. After database search using peptide mass fingerprinting, and MS/MS combined search, 30 proteins were identified, the proteins from chloroplastic photosynthetic and carbohydrate metabolism being those most highly represented. From these data, we were able to conclude that each extraction protocol had its main features. Considering this, the workflow of any standard comparative proteomic experiment should include the optimization and adaptation of the protein extraction protocol to the plant tissue and to the particular objective pursued. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available