4.7 Article

Correlation analysis of proteins responsive to Zn, Mn, or Fe deficiency in Arabidopsis roots based on iTRAQ analysis

期刊

PLANT CELL REPORTS
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 157-166

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-014-1696-2

关键词

Cosine correlation coefficients; iTRAQ; GLP5; PDR9/ABCG37; Quantitative proteomics

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [23119512]
  2. Nara Institute of Science and Technology by Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
  3. Japan Advanced Plant Science Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For discovering the functional correlation between the identified and quantified proteins by iTRAQ analysis, here we propose a correlation analysis method with cosine correlation coefficients as a powerful tool. iTRAQ analysis is a quantitative proteomics approach that enables identification and quantification of a large number of proteins. In order to obtain proteins responsive to Zn, Mn, or Fe mineral deficiency, we conducted iTRAQ analysis using a microsomal fraction of protein extractions from Arabidopsis root tissues. We identified and quantified 730 common proteins in three biological replicates with less than 1 % false discovery rate. To determine the role of these proteins in tolerating mineral deficiencies and their relation to each other, we calculated cosine correlation coefficients and represented the outcomes on a correlation map for visual understanding of functional relations among the identified proteins. Functionally similar proteins were gathered into the same clusters. Interestingly, a cluster of proteins (FRO2, IRT1, AHA2, PDR9/ABCG37, and GLP5) highly responsive to Fe deficiency was identified, which included both known and unknown novel proteins involved in tolerating Fe deficiency. We propose that the correlation analysis with the cosine correlation coefficients is a powerful method for finding important proteins of interest to several biological processes through comprehensive data sets.

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