4.7 Review

Proteomics, Holm Oak (Quercus ilex L.) and Other Recalcitrant and Orphan Forest Tree Species: How do They See Each Other?

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20030692

关键词

holm oak; Quercus ilex; 2-DE proteomics; shotgun proteomics; non-orthodox seed; population variability; stresses responses

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad -Programa Estatal de I+D+i Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad [AGL2009-12243-C02-02, BIO2015-64737-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proteomics has had a big impact on plant biology, considered as a valuable tool for several forest species, such as Quercus, Pines, Poplars, and Eucalyptus. This review assesses the potential and limitations of the proteomics approaches and is focused on Quercus ilex as a model species and other forest tree species. Proteomics has been used with Q. ilex since 2003 with the main aim of examining natural variability, developmental processes, and responses to biotic and abiotic stresses as in other species of the genus Quercus or Pinus. As with the progress in techniques in proteomics in other plant species, the research in Q. ilex moved from 2-DE based strategy to the latest gel-free shotgun workflows. Experimental design, protein extraction, mass spectrometric analysis, confidence levels of qualitative and quantitative proteomics data, and their interpretation are a true challenge with relation to forest tree species due to their extreme orphan and recalcitrant (non-orthodox) nature. Implementing a systems biology approach, it is time to validate proteomics data using complementary techniques and integrate it with the -omics and classical approaches. The full potential of the protein field in plant research is quite far from being entirely exploited. However, despite the methodological limitations present in proteomics, there is no doubt that this discipline has contributed to deeper knowledge of plant biology and, currently, is increasingly employed for translational purposes.

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