4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Proteolytic 18O labeling for comparative proteomics:: Model studies with two serotypes of adenovirus

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 73, 期 13, 页码 2836-2842

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac001404c

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 21248] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method for proteolytic stable isotope labeling is introduced to provide quantitative and concurrent comparisons between individual proteins from two entire proteome pools or their subfractions. Two O-18 atoms are incorporated universally into the carboxyl termini of all tryptic peptides during the proteolytic cleavage of all proteins in the first pool. Proteins in the second pool are cleaved analogously with the carboxyl termini of the resulting peptides containing two O-16 atoms (i.e., no labeling). The two peptide mixtures are pooled for fractionation and separation, and the masses and isotope ratios of each peptide pair (differing by 4 Da) are measured by high-resolution mass spectrometry, Short sequences and/or accurate mass measurements combined with proteomics software tools allow the peptides to be related to the precursor proteins from which they are derived. Relative signal intensities of paired peptides quantify the expression levels of their precursor proteins from proteome pools to be compared, using an equation described in the paper, Observation of individual (unpaired) peptides is mainly interpreted as differential modification or sequence variation for the protein from the respective proteome pool, The method is evaluated here in a comparison of virion proteins for two serotypes (Ad5 and Ad2) of adenovirus, taking advantage of information already available about protein sequences and concentrations. In general, proteolytic O-18 labeling enables a shotgun approach for proteomic studies with quantitation capability and is proposed as a useful tool for comparative proteomic studies of very complex protein mixtures.

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

4.8
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