4.5 Article

To be or not to be a nucleoid protein: A comparison of mass-spectrometry based approaches in the identification of potential mtDNA-nucleoid associated proteins

期刊

BIOCHIMIE
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 219-226

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biochi.2013.09.017

关键词

mtDNA; Nucleoid; Mass spectrometry; TFAM; Mitoribosome

资金

  1. Academy of Finland
  2. Tampere University Hospital Medical Research Fund [9J119, 9k126, 9L097]
  3. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [865.10.004]
  4. European Molecular Biology Organization [EMBO]
  5. Marie Curie Actions
  6. EMBO LTF [1066_2011, MCA-EMBOCOFUND2010, GA-2010-267146]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the last decade it has become increasingly clear that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is not naked but associated with proteins in poorly defined structures called nucleoids that are essential for mtDNA maintenance. The function of nucleoids is not simply to package mtDNA but also to provide a stable environment for its replication, transcription and repair. Even though their properties and dynamics have begun to be revealed in recent years, their structural and molecular organization remains largely unknown in mammals. Although, there are a number of proteins identified to be nucleoid associated by using several biochemical isolation methods combined with mass spectrometric analysis, the main difficulties in the identification of these proteins are their low abundance and the assumed dynamic composition of nucleoids. Considering various purification methods, there is a thin line between the stringency and specificity in the identification of potential nucleoid associated proteins. In this review, the main focus is to provide a comprehensive comparison of the so far published purification and analysis methods to generate a list of potentially nucleoid associated proteins, but also, to discuss the disadvantages and possible improvements in proteomic analyses. (C) 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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