4.1 Article

A gel-free approach in vascular smooth muscle cell proteome: perspectives for a better insight into activation

期刊

PROTEOME SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1477-5956-8-15

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The use of chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) analysis is a powerful approach to identify proteins, owing to its capacity to fractionate molecules according to different chemical features. The first protein expression map of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC) was published in 2001 and since then other papers have been produced. The most detailed two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) map was presented by Mayr et al who identified 235 proteins, corresponding to the 154 most abundant unique proteins in mouse aortic VSMC. A chromatographic approach aimed at fractionating the VSMC proteome has never been used before. Results: This paper describes a strategy for the study of the VSMC proteome. Our approach was based on pre-fractionation with ion exchange chromatography coupled with matrix assisted laser desorption-time of flight mass spectrometry analysis assisted by a liquid chromatography (LC-MALDI-TOF/TOF). Ion exchange chromatography resulted in a good strategy designed to simplify the complexity of the cellular extract and to identify a large number of proteins. Selectivity based on the ion-exchange chemical features was adequate if evaluated on the basis of protein pl. The LC-MALDI approach proved to be highly reproducible and sensitive since we were able to identify up to 815 proteins with a concentration dynamic range of 7 orders of magnitude. Conclusions: In our opinion, the large number of identified proteins and the promising quantitative reproducibility made this approach a powerful method to analyze complex protein mixtures in a high throughput way and to obtain statistical data for the discovery of key factors involved in VSMC activation and to analyze a label-free differential protein expression.

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

4.1
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