4.5 Article

Comparative lipidomics and proteomics analysis of platelet lipid rafts using different detergents

期刊

PLATELETS
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 634-641

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/09537104.2016.1174203

关键词

Detergents; lipid rafts; lipidomics; platelets; proteomics

资金

  1. Region Franche-Comte
  2. French Federation of Cardiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lipid rafts play a pivotal role in physiological functions of platelets. Their isolation using nonionic mild detergents is considered as the gold standard method, but there is no consensual detergent for lipid raft studies. We aimed to investigate which detergent is the most suitable for lipid raft isolation from platelet membrane, based on lipidomics and proteomics analysis. Platelets were obtained from healthy donors. Twelve sucrose fractions were extracted by three different detergents, namely Brij 35, Lubrol WX, and Triton X100, at 0.05% and 1%. After lipidomics analysis and determination of fractions enriched in cholesterol (Ch) and sphingomyelin (SM), proteomics analysis was performed. Lipid rafts were mainly observed in 1-4 fractions, and non-rafts were distributed on 5-12 fractions. Considering the concentration of Ch and SM, Lubrol WX 1% and Triton X100 1% were more suitable detergents as they were able to isolate lipid raft fractions that were more enriched than non-raft fractions. By proteomics analysis, overall, 822 proteins were identified in platelet membrane. Lipid raft fractions isolated with Lubrol WX 0.05% and Triton X100 1% contained mainly plasma membrane proteins. However, only Lubrol WX 0.05 and 1% and Triton X100 1% were able to extract non-denaturing proteins with more than 10 transmembrane domains. Our results suggest that Triton X100 1% is the most suitable detergent for global lipid and protein studies on platelet plasma membrane. However, the detergent should be adapted if investigation of an association between specific proteins and lipid rafts is planned.

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