4.5 Article

Simultaneous proteomic profiling of four different growth states of human fibroblasts, using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents and tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

MECHANISMS OF AGEING AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 127, 期 4, 页码 332-343

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2005.12.005

关键词

senescence; proteomics; iTRAQ

资金

  1. PHS HHS [R37-07444] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In general, permanent growth arrest due to exhaustive cell replication can be induced prematurely by either stress or overexpression of selected oncogenes. In an attempt to examine key proteins involved in achieving premature senescence, and how they differ from those in serially passaged, replicatively exhausted cells, we used a novel proteomic profiling approach, isobaric tagging for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ), to perform simultaneous four-way comparison of replicatively senescent fibroblasts, oxidatively stressed prematurely senescent fibroblasts, and their young replicating and quiescent counterparts. Two hundred and forty proteins were identified and quantified simultaneously; data analysis reveals: (1) groups of proteins whose expressions are uniformly either up- or down-regulated in all three growth arrest states; (2) signature proteins which may serve as candidate proteomic markers to differentiate the quiescent state from permanent growth arrest by either exhaustive replication or stress induction and (3) that while oxidative stress-induced, prematurely senescent fibroblasts morphologically resemble their replicatively exhausted counterparts, they exhibit different protein expression patterns. Results from simultaneous proteomic profiling were validated by Western blotting for selected proteins: collagen type 1, HSP90 and vimentin. In conclusion, this report shows that iTRAQ proteomic profiling is a powerful technique for globally mapping protein signatures for different culture growth states. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.5
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