4.5 Article

2-D difference gel electrophoresis approach to assess protein expression profiles in Bathymodiolus azoricus from Mid-Atlantic Ridge hydrothermal vents

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 2909-2919

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.07.012

关键词

Bathymodiolus azoricus; Hydrothermal vents; Proteome; 2-D DIGE

资金

  1. 5th PCRD Ventox project [EVK3CT1999-00003]
  2. FCT [SFRH/BPD/26399/2006]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/26399/2006] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrothermal vent mussels Bathymodiolus azoricus are naturally exposed to toxic chemical species originated directly from vent chimneys. The amount of toxic elements varies significantly among vent sites along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and B. azoricus must be able to adapt to changes in hydrothermal fluid composition, temperature and pressure. The aim of this work was to study changes in the proteome in the gill-bacteria complex of mussels B. azoricus from three hydrothermal vent sites with distinct environmental characteristics using 2-D Fluorescence Difference Gel Electrophoresis (2-D DIGE). Results showed that 31 proteins had different expression profiles among vent sites and both cluster and principal component analysis confirm a clear separation of mussels between sites. This suggests the existence of specific parameters grouping individuals from the same hydrothermal site. Protein spots of the more abundant differentially expressed proteins were excised, digested with trypsin and identified by mass spectrometry. All identified proteins (actin, ubiquinone, S-adenosylhomocysteine hydrolase, cysteine peptidases, chaperonin and catalase) have been related previously with oxidative stress conditions and are known to be affected by ROS inducing stressors, including metals. Results point out to specific adaptations at the proteome level of B. azoricus depending on the level of toxicants present in their environment. (C) 2011 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

4.5
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