4.7 Article

Dissolving capability difference based sequential extraction: A versatile tool for in-depth membrane proteome analysis

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 945, 期 -, 页码 39-46

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2016.09.032

关键词

Sequential extraction; Sample preparation; Membrane proteome profiling; Missing proteins

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [21235005, 21505136, 21375126, 21405153]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Profiling membrane proteins would facilitate revealing disease mechanism and discovering new drug targets as they play essential roles in cellular signaling, substrate transport, and cell adhesion. However, the analysis of membrane proteins still remains a challenge due to their high hydrophobicity, as well as the suppression effect of high abundant soluble proteins. In this work, to achieve a membrane proteome profiling, a sample preparation strategy based on sequential extraction at the protein level assisted by a range of extraction reagents with different dissolving capabilities, followed by nano-RPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis was developed and applied for HeLa cell line analysis. It was found that with progressively harsher extraction reagents (i.e., 2 M NaCl, 4 M urea, 0.1 M Na2CO3, and 10% 1-dodecyl-3- methylimidazolium chloride (C12ImCl) performed, much more high hydrophobic proteins and low abundant proteins were identified. With our developed strategy, 5553 of the identified proteins (4419 gene products) were annotated to be membrane proteins and 2573 proteins (2183 gene products) have at least one transmembrane domain, to our best knowledge, which is the most comprehensive membrane proteome dataset for HeLa cell line. Notably, 110 of the identified membrane proteins were discovered in the missing proteins list referred to those in the neXtProt database. All above results indicated that our strategy has great potential to tackle the difficult but relevant task of identifying and profiling membrane proteins. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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