4.5 Article

High-abundance protein depletion: Comparison of methods for human plasma biomarker discovery

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 471-482

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/elps.200900286

关键词

Biomarker discovery; High abundance; Plasma; Protein depletion; Proteomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Affinity depletion of abundant proteins from human plasma has become a routine sample preparation strategy in proteomics used prior to protein identification and quantitation. To date, there have been limited published studies comparing the performance of commercially available depletion products. We conducted a thorough evaluation of six depletion columns using 2-DE combined with sophisticated image analysis software, examining the following criteria: (i) efficiency of high-abundance protein depletion, (h) non-specific removal of other than the targeted proteins and (iii) total number of protein spots detected on the gels following depletion. From all the products investigated, the Seppro IgY system provided the best results. It displayed the greatest number of protein spots on the depleted plasma gels, minimal non-specific binding and high efficiency of abundant protein removal. Nevertheless, the increase in the number of detected spots compared with the second best performing and cheaper multiple affinity removal column (MARC) was not shown to be statistically significant. The ProteoPrep spin column, considered to be the deepest depletion technique available at the time of conducting the study, surprisingly displayed significantly fewer spots on the flow-through fraction gels compared with both the Seppro and the MARC. The spin column format and low plasma capacity were also found to be impractical for 2-DE. To conclude, we succeeded in providing an overview of the depletion columns performances with regard to the three examined areas. Our study will serve as a reference to other scientists when deciding on the optimal product for their particular projects.

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