4.7 Article

Combination of Chemical Genetics and Phosphoproteomics for Kinase Signaling Analysis Enables Confident Identification of Cellular Downstream Targets

期刊

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.O111.012351

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Bundesministerium fur Bildung and Forschung
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 GM094972]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delineation of phosphorylation-based signaling networks requires reliable data about the underlying cellular kinase-substrate interactions. We report a chemical genetics and quantitative phosphoproteomics approach that encompasses cellular kinase activation in combination with comparative replicate mass spectrometry analyses of cells expressing either inhibitor-sensitive or resistant kinase variant. We applied this workflow to Plk1 (Polo-like kinase 1) in mitotic cells and induced cellular Plk1 activity by wash-out of the bulky kinase inhibitor 3-MB-PP1, which targets a mutant kinase version with an enlarged catalytic pocket while not interfering with wild-type Plk1. We quantified more than 20,000 distinct phosphorylation sites by SILAC, approximately half of which were measured in at least two independent experiments in cells expressing mutant and wild-type Plk1. Based on replicate phosphorylation site quantifications in both mutant and wild-type Plk1 cells, our chemical genetic proteomics concept enabled stringent comparative statistics by significance analysis of microarrays, which unveiled more than 350 cellular downstream targets of Plk1 validated by full concordance of both statistical and experimental data. Our data point to hitherto poorly characterized aspects in Plk1-controlled mitotic progression and provide a largely extended resource for functional studies. We anticipate the described strategies to be of general utility for systematic and confident identification of cellular protein kinase substrates. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 11: 10.1074/mcp.O111.012351, 1-12, 2012.

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