4.5 Article

Mapping glycosylation changes related to cancer using the Multiplexed Proteomics technology: a protein differential display approach

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1570-0232(03)00370-2

关键词

glycosylation; Multiplexed Proteomics; differential display; haptoglobin

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [1R33 CA093292-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The metastatic spread of tumor cells in malignant progression is known to be a major cause of cancer mortality. Protein glycosylation is increasingly being recognized as one of the most prominent biochemical alterations associated with malignant transformation and tumorigenesis. The Multiplexed Proteomics (MP) approach is a new technology that permits quantitative, multicolor fluorescence detection of proteins in two-dimensional (2-D) gels and on Western blots. This methodology allows the parallel determination of both altered glycosylation patterns and protein expression level changes within a single 2-D gel experiment. The linear responses of the fluorescent dyes utilized allow rigorous quantitation of changes in protein expression over a broad 3-log linear dynamic range. Global analysis of changes in protein glycosylation and total protein expression is followed by dichromatic, lectin-based profiling methods for rapidly categorizing glycan branching structures. The MP approach was applied to whole tissue extracts of normal and cancerous liver, so that altered glycosylation modification patterns and protein expression levels could be determined. One prominent glycoprotein determined to be up-regulated in the tumor tissue was haptoglobin, an acute-phase response protein. The detection methodologies associated with the MP technology radically increase the information content of 2-D gel experiments. This new information greatly enhances the applicability of these experiments in addressing fundamental questions associated with proteome-wide glycosylation changes related to cancer. (C) 2003 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

4.5
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