Top Banner
Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007
12

Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Jan 01, 2016

Download

Documents

Sophia Casey
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Comparative Proteome Analysis

Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007

Page 2: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Main Goal:

Compare proteomics for two human epithelial ovarian cell lines in search for cancer biomarkers

Page 3: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Morphology of the two human epithelial ovarian cell lines

TOV-81D cells (low malignant) show a flat morphology similar to normal human ovarian epithelium (A)

TOV-112D cells (extremely aggressive) show a highly rounded morphology characteristic of highly transformed cell lines (B)

Page 4: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Traditional 2D-GE Proteomics Technique

• Obtain cell lysates

• Run 2D-GE for each sample (in triplicates)

• Compare the gels and spot over-expressed and/or under-expressed proteins

• Identify those proteins (for each spot):– Cut the spot and trypsinaze the protein– Run LS-MS– Identify at least two unique peptides

Page 5: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Advantages:

Disadvantages:

• Laborious and time consuming

• MW cut-off (6 – 250 kDa)

• Well established technique

• Visualization of the protein spots

• Detection of modified proteins

Page 6: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Detection of carbonylated (oxidized) proteins

A – 2D gel of total proteins from wild-type Arabidopsis seeds B – The indicated portion of the gel C, D, E – Revelation of carbonylated proteins with the anti-DNP immunoassay:

C, Dry mature seeds; D, Seeds incubated in water; E, Seeds incubated with salicylic acid (Job et al., 2005; Rajjou et al., 2006)

Page 7: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

“Full digest” Proteomics Technique with iTRAQ Labeling

• Obtain cell lysates

• Trypsinaze each lysate

• Label each lysate with one iTRAQ reagent

• Combine samples (up to 4 lysates)

• Perform pre-fractionation (IEF, IEC)

• Run LC-MS (10-20 fractions)

• Identify and simultaneously quantify peptides and parent proteins

Page 8: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Analysis of iTRAQ-labeled Peptides

114

115

116

117

114

115

116 117

Page 9: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Advantages:

Disadvantages:

• Complex peptide mixtures

• Additional in vitro labeling step

• Additional pre-fractionation step

• No 2D gels, no MW cut-off

• Combine up to 4 digested samples

• Reliable quantitation

Page 10: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Representative 2D gel images for the two ovarian cell lines

Page 11: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Final Score:

2D GE/LC-MS – 65 (51) proteins

iTRAQ LC-MS – 37 (32) proteins

Crossover – 10 proteins

Page 12: Comparative Proteome Analysis Gagne et al. Proteome Sci. 2007.

Conclusions:

Both approaches were successful in the biomarker search

Each approach has specific advantages and limitations

There is no easy way for proteomics studies…