4.5 Article

Innovative workflow for the identification of cathepsin K cleavage sites in type I collagen

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2023.123864

关键词

High resolution mass spectrometry; Nano liquid chromatography; Type I collagen digestion; Cathepsin K; Degradomics; Cleavage sites identification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a mass spectrometry-based workflow was proposed to identify new cathepsin K cleavage sites. The results revealed multiple cleavage hotspots and a preference for cleavage at the ends of type I collagen. The study also found that cathepsin K preferentially cleaves amino acid residues with long and hydrophobic lateral chains at the beginning of digestion.
Since the late 1990s, cathepsin K cleavage sites in type I collagen have been extensively studied due to its ability to release bone resorption biomarkers such as CTX and NTX. However, gel-based methods and N-sequencing used in these studies lack sensitivity, especially for small to medium peptides. In this work, we propose a degradomics mass spectrometry-based workflow that combines protein digestion, Nano-LC-UDMSE, and several software tools to identify cathepsin K cleavage sites. This workflow not only identified previously known cleavage sites, but also discovered new ones. Multiple cleavage hotspots were found and described in type I & alpha;1 and type I & alpha;2 collagen, many of which coincided with pyridinoline crosslinks, known to stabilize the triple helix. Our results allowed us to establish a chronology of digestion and conclude that cathepsin K preferentially cleaves the extremities of type I collagen before the helical part. We also found that cathepsin K preferentially cleaves amino acid residues with long and hydrophobic lateral chains at the beginning of digestion, whereas no preferred amino acid residues were identified later in the digestion. In conclusion, our workflow successfully identified new cleavage sites and can be easily applied to other proteins or proteases.

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

4.5
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