4.7 Review

An old method facing a new challenge: Re-visiting housekeeping proteins as internal reference control for neuroscience research

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 92, 期 13, 页码 747-751

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2013.02.014

关键词

beta-Actin; beta-Tubulin; GAPDH; Protein staining; Internal reference; Diseases; Age; Tissue-specificity

资金

  1. Alzheimer's Association [IIRG-07-59510, IIRG-09-61521]
  2. American Health Assistance Foundation [G2006-118]
  3. National Institute of Health (NIH) [R01AG032441-01, R01AG025888-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of specific target protein expression is often performed by western blotting, a commonly used method to measure the protein expression in neuroscience research by specific antibodies. Housekeeping proteins are used as an internal control for protein loading as well as reference in the western blotting analysis. This practice is based on the belief that such housekeeping genes are considered to be ubiquitously and constitutively expressed in every tissue and produce the minimal essential transcripts necessary for normal cellular function. The most commonly used housekeeping proteins are beta-actin, beta-tubulin, and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH). However, recent studies have shown significant variation in some housekeeping genes both at the mRNA and protein levels in various neuropathological events, such as spinal cord injury and Alzheimer's diseases. Changes of housekeeping genes are also induced by non-neuronal diseases in various tissues. Therefore, these discoveries raise a potential concern regarding whether using a housekeeping protein as an internal standard for target protein analysis is an appropriate practice. This minireview will focus on (I) the effects of neuronal and non-neuronal diseases, experimental condition, and tissue-specific roles on alteration of housekeeping genes, and (II) alternative internal standards for gene and protein expression analysis. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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