4.7 Article

Quantitative cancer proteomics: Stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) as a tool for prostate cancer research

Journal

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
Volume 3, Issue 7, Pages 729-735

Publisher

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M400021-MCP200

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA37393] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [HG00041] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microarrays have been the primary means for large-scale analyses of genes implicated in cancer progression. However, more recently a need has been recognized for investigating cancer development directly at the protein level. In this report, we have applied a comparative proteomic technique to the study of metastatic prostate cancer. This technology, termed stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture (SILAC), has recently gained popularity for its ability to compare the expression levels of hundreds of proteins in a single experiment. SILAC makes use of C-12- and C-13-labeled amino acids added to the growth media of separately cultured cell lines, giving rise to cells containing either light or heavy proteins, respectively. Upon mixing lysates collected from these cells, proteins can be identified by tandem mass spectrometry. The incorporation of stable isotopes also allows for a quantitative comparison between the two samples. Using this method, we compared the expression levels for more than 440 proteins in the microsomal fractions of prostate cancer cells with varying metastatic potential. Of these, 60 were found elevated greater than 3-fold in the highly metastatic cells, whereas 22 were reduced by equivalent amounts. Western blotting provided further confirmation of the mass spectrometry-based quantification. Our results demonstrate the applicability of this novel approach toward the study of cancer progression using defined cell lines.

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