4.7 Article

Stable Isotope Labeling by Amino Acids in Cell Culture (SILAC) and Quantitative Comparison of the Membrane Proteomes of Self-renewing and Differentiating Human Embryonic Stem Cells

期刊

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 959-970

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M800287-MCP200

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation
  2. Danish Natural Science Research Council
  3. Danish Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) is a powerful quantitative proteomics platform for comprehensive characterization of complex biological systems. However, the potential of SILAC-based approaches has not been fully utilized in human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research mainly because of the complex nature of hESC culture conditions. Here we describe complete SILAC labeling of hESCs with fully preserved pluripotency, self-renewal capabilities, and overall proteome status that was quantitatively analyzed to a depth of 1556 proteins and 527 phosphorylation events. SILAC-labeled hESCs appear to be perfectly suitable for functional studies, and we exploited a SILAC-based proteomics strategy for discovery of hESC-specific surface markers. We determined and quantitatively compared the membrane proteomes of the self-renewing versus differentiating cells of two distinct human embryonic stem cell lines. Of the 811 identified membrane proteins, six displayed significantly higher expression levels in the undifferentiated state compared with differentiating cells. This group includes the established marker CD133/Prominin-1 as well as novel candidates for hESC surface markers: Glypican-4, Neuroligin-4, ErbB2, receptor-type tyrosine-protein phosphatase zeta (PTPRZ), and Glycoprotein M6B. Our study also revealed 17 potential markers of hESC differentiation as their corresponding protein expression levels displayed a dramatic increase in differentiated embryonic stem cell populations. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 8: 959-970, 2009.

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