4.5 Article

Proteomic analysis of parthenogenetic and in vitro fertilized porcine embryos

Journal

PROTEOMICS
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages 2846-2860

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200800700

Keywords

In vitro fertilization; MS; Parthenogenesis; Pig embryo

Funding

  1. Institute of Biomedical Science and Technology [20070401034031, 20070401034017]
  2. Konkuk University, Korea [IBST-2007-03-04]
  3. Ministry of Health and Welfare, and Stem Cell Research [A060769]
  4. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea [SC-2120]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Proteomic data from embryos are essential for the completion of whole proteome catalog due to embryo-specific expression of certain proteins. In this study, using reverse phase LC-MS/MS combined with 1-D SIDS-PAGE, we identified 1625 mammalian and 735 Sus scrofa proteins from porcine zygotes that included both cytosolic and membranous proteins. We also found that the global protein profiles of parthenogenetically activated (PA) and in vitro fertilized (IVF) zygotes were similar but differences in expression of individual proteins were also evident. These differences were not due to culture conditions, polyspermy or non-activation of oocytes, as the same culture method was used in both groups, the frequency of polyspermy was 24.3 +/- 3.0% and the rates of oocyte activation did not differ (p>0.05) between PA and IVF embryos. Consistent with proteomic data, fluorescent Hoechst 33 342 staining and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling assay also revealed that PA embryos were of poor quality as they contained less cells per blastocyst and were more predisposed to apoptosis (p < 0.05), although their in vitro development rates were similar. To our knowledge, this is the first report on global peptide sequencing and quantification of protein in PA and IVF embryos by LC-MS/MS that may be useful as a reference map for future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available