4.7 Article

Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for the Fast Profiling of Histone Post-Translational Modifications

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 5501-5509

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr100497a

关键词

histones; post-translational modifications; ultra-high performance liquid chromatography; mass spectrometry; label-free quantification

资金

  1. CEA
  2. French National Research Agency [ANR-07-B1AN-0098-01]
  3. French Association for Research on Cancer [ARC 9916]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Histones are subjected to extensive post-translational modifications (PTMs) that are known to play key roles in many biological processes. In this study, we report a fast, efficient, highly reproducible, and easily automated method involving ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) coupled to a high resolution/high mass accuracy LTQ-Orbitrap mass spectrometer to profile core histone modifications/variants from WI-38 primary human fibroblasts. The whole analysis was performed on intact unfractionated histones within 19 min, which is similar to 3-fold faster than previously published procedures. High mass accuracy measurements combined with top-down tandem mass spectrometry (MS) experiments enable accurate histone identification. Experimental and biological variations were thoroughly assessed and were 8% and 16% on average, respectively. With a sample preparation reduced to the minimum, characterization of the most abundant histones can be achieved in a single experiment. Semi-quantitative information can be obtained with respect to the relative abundances of the detected isoforms through a label-free approach. lsoform identities and relative distributions were further confirmed by the LC-MS/MS analysis of tryptic digests. Overall, our UHPLC MS approach for histone profiling offers a sensitive and reproducible tool that will be of great value for exploring PTMs and variants and can readily be applied to clinical or pharmaceutical studies.

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