4.7 Article

Identification of Alternative Splicing in Proteomes of Human Melanoma Cell Lines without RNA Sequencing Data

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032466

关键词

proteogenomics; cell lines; alternative splicing; melanoma; proteomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed new algorithms for the identification and validation of protein splice isoforms in proteomic data without the need for RNA sequencing. The bioinformatic approaches were tested on proteome analysis of human melanoma cell lines. The identified splicing events were further validated at the mRNA level by quantitative PCR.
Alternative splicing is one of the main regulation pathways in living cells beyond simple changes in the level of protein expression. Most of the approaches proposed in proteomics for the identification of specific splicing isoforms require a preliminary deep transcriptomic analysis of the sample under study, which is not always available, especially in the case of the re-analysis of previously acquired data. Herein, we developed new algorithms for the identification and validation of protein splice isoforms in proteomic data in the absence of RNA sequencing of the samples under study. The bioinformatic approaches were tested on the results of proteome analysis of human melanoma cell lines, obtained earlier by high-resolution liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (LC-MS). A search for alternative splicing events for each of the cell lines studied was performed against the database generated from all known transcripts (RefSeq) and the one composed of peptide sequences, which included all biologically possible combinations of exons. The identifications were filtered using the prediction of both retention times and relative intensities of fragment ions in the corresponding mass spectra. The fragmentation mass spectra corresponding to the discovered alternative splicing events were additionally examined for artifacts. Selected splicing events were further validated at the mRNA level by quantitative PCR.

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