4.5 Article

A three-way proteomics strategy allows differential analysis of yeast mitochondrial membrane protein complexes under anaerobic and aerobic conditions

期刊

PROTEOMICS
卷 9, 期 20, 页码 4787-4798

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200800951

关键词

Difference analysis; Membrane proteins; Microbiology; Mitochondrial proteome; Saccharomyces Cerevisiae; Stable isotope labeling

资金

  1. Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentation
  2. Netherlands Proteomics Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the effect of anaerobiosis on the Saccharomyces cerevisiae mitochondrial proteome and the formation of respiratory chain and other protein complexes, we analyzed mitochondrial protein extracts that were enriched from lysates of aerobic and anaerobic steady-state chemostat cultures. We chose an innovative approach in which native mitochondrial membrane protein complexes were separated by 1-D blue native PAGE, which was combined with quantitative analysis of each complex subunit using stable isotope labeling. LC-FT(ICR)-MS/MS analysis was applied to identify and quantify the mitochondrial proteins. In addition, to establish if changes in mitochondrial complex composition occurred under anaerobiosis, we investigated the 1-D blue native PAGE protein migration patterns by Pearson correlation analysis. Surprisingly, we discovered that under anaerobic conditions, where the yeast respiratory chain is not active, the respiratory chain supercomplexes, such as complex V dimer, complex (III)(2)(IV)(2) and complex (III)(2)(IV) were still present, although at reduced levels. Pearson correlation analysis showed that the composition of the mitochondrial complexes was unchanged under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, with the exception of complex II. In addition, this latter approach allowed screening for possible novel complex interaction partners, since for example protein Aim38p, with a yet unknown function, was identified as a possible component of respiratory chain complex IV.

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