4.7 Article

Proteomic analysis of normal human urinary proteins isolated by acetone precipitation or ultracentrifugation

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 62, Issue 4, Pages 1461-1469

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2002.kid565.x

Keywords

protein analysis; transporter; adhesion molecule; chaperone; receptor; post-translational modifications; biomarker; large-scale analysis

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL 66358-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Proteomic techniques have recently become available for large-scale protein analysis. The utility of these techniques in identification of urinary proteins is poorly defined. We constructed a proteome map of normal human urine as a reference protein database by using two differential fractionated techniques to isolate the proteins. Methods. Proteins were isolated from urine obtained from normal human volunteers by acetone precipitation or ultracentrifugation, separated by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) and identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry followed by peptide mass fingerprinting. Results. A total of 67 protein forms of 47 unique proteins were identified, including transporters, adhesion molecules, complement, chaperones, receptors, enzymes, serpins, cell signaling proteins and matrix proteins. Acetone precipitated more acidic and hydrophilic proteins, whereas ultracentrifugation fractionated more basic, hydrophobic, and membrane proteins. Bioinformatic analysis predicted glycosylation to be the most common explanation for multiple forms of the same protein. Conclusions. Combining two differential isolation techniques magnified protein identification from human urine. Proteomic analysis of urinary proteins is a promising tool to study renal physiology and pathophysiology and to determine biomarkers of renal disease.

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