4.3 Article

Optimizing protein recovery for urinary proteomics, a tool to monitor renal transplantation

期刊

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 617-623

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2008.00833.x

关键词

biomarkers; renal transplantation; urinary proteomics

资金

  1. NIH [R01 AI 6173901]
  2. the Child Health Initiative grants at Lucille Packard Children's Hospital
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI061739] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite attractiveness of urine for biomarker discovery for systemic and renal diseases, the confounding effect of the high abundance plasma proteins in urine, and a lack of optimization of urine protein recovery methods are bottlenecks for urine proteomics. Three methods were performed and compared for percentage protein yield, yield consistency, ease and cost of analysis: (i) organic solvent precipitation, (ii) dialysis/lyophilization, and (iii) centrifugal filtration. Urine samples were subjected to an immunoaffinity column to deplete high abundance proteins. Difference gel electrophoresis was performed to assess use of depletion strategy for detection of low abundance proteins. Urine from healthy volunteers (n = 10) and kidney transplant recipients with proteinuria (n = 11) were used. Centrifugal filtration performed best for analysis ease and yield consistency. Highest percentage yield was obtained from dialysis/lyophilization but was laborious and residual salt interfered with subsequent gel electrophoresis. Organic solvent precipitation was inexpensive, but suffered from varying yield consistency. Increased spot intensity for some low abundance and previously undetected proteins were noted after depletion of high abundance proteins. In conclusion, we compare the pros and cons of different protein recovery methods and reveal an increase in the dynamic range of protein detection after depletional strategy that could be critical for biomarker discovery, particularly with reference to processing human study samples from clinical trials.

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

4.3
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