4.7 Article

Chemical Cleavage-Assisted Tryptic Digestion for Membrane Proteome Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 3169-3175

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr900074n

关键词

cyanocysteine cleavage; membrane proteome; trypsin digestion; transmembrane domain; E. coli proteome

资金

  1. Yamagata Prefecture
  2. Tsuruoka City
  3. Japan Science and Technology Agency
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21310129] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have developed a simple and unbiased method for membrane proteome analysis using cyanocysteine-mediated cleavage in combination with trypsin digestion. In our previous study, application of the trypsin-based phase-transfer surfactants (PTS) protocol for membrane proteome analysis provided a substantial improvement in the identification of the membrane proteome, but the task remains challenging, because trypsin often generates peptides larger than the observable m/z range. Here, we predict computationally that the combination of Cys cleavage with tryptic digestion would be more effective than trypsin digestion alone for membrane proteome analysis. To validate this prediction, we applied a combined Cys cleavage-trypsin approach to 14 mu g of Escherichia coli membrane-enriched pellet. By using two-dimensional LC-MS/MS, we identified a total of 1530 proteins, of which 667 were membrane proteins. This represents a 10% increase over the number identified with the PTS protocol using optimized trypsin-based digestion in our previous study [Masuda, T., et al. J. Proteome Res. 2008, 7 (2), 731-40]. The coverage of the E coli membrane proteome was approximately 40%, ranging from 37% to 42% in various subcategories. Further, the distribution of the number of transmembrane domains per protein was unbiased compared with that in the Geno-Base database. These results indicate that the combination Cys chemical cleavage-assisted trypsin digestion protocol will be a powerful tool for membrane proteome analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据