4.7 Article

Identification of Novel in vivo MAP Kinase Substrates in Arabidopsis thaliana Through Use of Tandem Metal Oxide Affinity Chromatography

期刊

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 369-380

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M112.020560

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Marie-Curie-international training network MERIT
  2. European Project PATHONET
  3. German Science Foundation (DFG)
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [I 1022] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MPK) cascades are important for eukaryotic signal transduction. They convert extracellular stimuli (e.g. some hormones, growth factors, cytokines, microbe-or damage-associated molecular patterns) into intracellular responses while at the same time amplifying the transmitting signal. By doing so, they ensure proper performance, and eventually survival, of a given organism, for example in times of stress. MPK cascades function via reversible phosphorylation of cascade components MEKKs, MEKs, and MPKs. In plants the identity of most MPK substrates remained elusive until now. Here, we provide a robust and powerful approach to identify and quantify, with high selectivity, site-specific phosphorylation of MPK substrate candidates in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Our approach represents a two-step chromatography combining phosphoprotein enrichment using Al(OH)(3)-based metal oxide affinity chromatography, tryptic digest of enriched phosphoproteins, and TiO2-based metal oxide affinity chromatography to enrich phosphopeptides from complex protein samples. When applied to transgenic conditional gain-of-function Arabidopsis plants supporting in planta activation of MPKs, the approach allows direct measurement and quantification ex vivo of site-specific phosphorylation of several reported and many yet unknown putative MPK substrates in just a single experiment. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 12: 10.1074/mcp.M112.020560, 369-380, 2013.

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