4.7 Article

In-gel NHS-propionate derivatization for histone post-translational modifications analysis in Arabidopsis thaliana

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 886, 期 -, 页码 107-113

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.06.019

关键词

Epigenetic; Histone post-translational modifications; In-gel derivatization; Multiple reaction monitoring quantification

资金

  1. MOST 973 project [2012CB910504]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Post-translational modifications (PTMs) on histone are highly correlated with genetic and epigenetic regulation of gene expression from chromatin. Mass spectrometry (MS) has developed to be an optimal tool for the identification and quantification of histone PTMs. Derivatization of histones with chemicals such as propionic anhydride, N-hydroxysuccinimide ester (NHS-propionate) has been widely used in histone PTMs analysis in bottom-up MS strategy, which requires high purity for histone samples. However, biological samples are not always prepared with high purity, containing detergents or other interferences in most cases. As an alternative approach, an adaptation of in gel derivatization method, termed In-gel NHS, is utilized for a broader application in histone PTMs analysis and it is shown to be a more time-saving preparation method. The proposed method was optimized for a better derivatization efficiency and displayed high reproducibility, indicating quantification of histone PTMs based on In-gel NHS was achievable. Without any traditional fussy histone purification procedures, we succeeded to quantitatively profile the histone PTMs from Arabidopsis with selective knock down of CLF (clf-29) and the original parental (col) with In-gel NHS method in a rapid way, which indicated the high specificity of CLF on H3K27me3 in Arabidopsis. In-gel NHS quantification results also suggest distinctive histone modification patterns in plants, which is invaluable foundation for future studies on histone modifications in plants. (C) 2015 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

4.7
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