4.5 Article

Combination of peptide OFFGEL fractionation and label-free quantitation facilitated proteomics profiling of extraocular muscle

Journal

PROTEOMICS
Volume 7, Issue 18, Pages 3404-3416

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200700382

Keywords

extraocular; label-free; muscle; OFFGEL electrophoresis; quantitation

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY13862, EY11779] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR48871] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several label-free quantitation strategies have been introduced that obliterate the need for expensive isotopically labeled molecules. However label-free approaches have considerably higher demands in respect of repeatability of sample preparation and fractionation than multiplexing isotope labeling-based strategies. OFFGEL fractionation promises the necessary separation efficiency and repeatability. To test this platform, 12-fraction peptide OFFGEL electrophoresis and online reversed-phase LC connected to a quadrupole TOF mass spectrometer were used to determine differences of the physiological, pathological and biochemical distinct extraocular muscle allotype in comparison to hind-limb muscle. Close to 70% of the peptides separated by OFFGEL electrophoresis were detected only in a single fraction. To determine the separation repeatability of four samples, we compared the ion volumes of multiple peptides deriving from the thick filament-associated protein titin over several fractions and determined a coefficient of variation below 20%. Of the 474 proteins identified, 61 proteins were differently expressed between the two muscle allotypes and were involved in metabolism, muscle contraction, stress response, or gene expression. Several expression differences were validated using immunohistochemistry and Western blot analysis. We therefore consider peptide OFFGEL fractionation an effective and efficient addition to our label-free quantitative proteomics workflow.

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