4.8 Article

Comprehensive mass-spectrometry-based proteome quantification of haploid versus diploid yeast

期刊

NATURE
卷 455, 期 7217, 页码 1251-U60

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature07341

关键词

-

资金

  1. Human Frontier Science Program
  2. European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mass spectrometry is a powerful technology for the analysis of large numbers of endogenous proteins(1,2). However, the analytical challenges associated with comprehensive identification and relative quantification of cellular proteomes have so far appeared to be insurmountable(3). Here, using advances in computational proteomics, instrument performance and sample preparation strategies, we compare protein levels of essentially all endogenous proteins in haploid yeast cells to their diploid counterparts. Our analysis spans more than four orders of magnitude in protein abundance with no discrimination against membrane or low level regulatory proteins. Stable- isotope labelling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) quantification(4,5) was very accurate across the proteome, as demonstrated by one- to- one ratios of most yeast proteins. Key members of the pheromone pathway were specific to haploid yeast but others were unaltered, suggesting an efficient control mechanism of the mating response. Several retrotransposon- associated proteins were specific to haploid yeast. Gene ontology analysis pinpointed a significant change for cell wall components in agreement with geometrical considerations: diploid cells have twice the volume but not twice the surface area of haploid cells. Transcriptome levels agreed poorly with proteome changes overall. However, after filtering out low confidence microarray measurements, messenger RNA changes and SILAC ratios correlated very well for pheromone pathway components. Systems- wide, precise quantification directly at the protein level opens up new perspectives in post- genomics and systems biology.

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

4.8
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