4.7 Article

Translational Targeted Proteomics Profiling of Mitochondrial Energy Metabolic Pathways in Mouse and Human Samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 3204-3213

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00419

关键词

targeted proteomics; selected reaction monitoring (SRM); mitochondrial energy metabolic pathways; translational proteomics; concatemer; absolute quantification

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) through a Centre for Systems Biology Research (CSBR) [853.00.110]
  2. Top Institute for Food and Nutrition [GH003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Absolute measurements of protein abundance are important in the understanding of biological processes and the precise computational modeling of biological pathways. We developed targeted LC-MS/MS assays in the selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode to quantify over 50 mitochondrial proteins in a single run. The targeted proteins cover the tricarboxylic acid cycle, fatty acid beta-oxidation, oxidative phosphorylation, and the detoxification of reactive oxygen species. Assays used isotopically labeled concatemers as internal standards designed to target murine mitochondrial proteins and their human orthologues. Most assays were also suitable to quantify the corresponding protein orthologues in rats. After exclusion of peptides that did not pass the selection criteria, we arrived at SRM assays for 55 mouse, 52 human, and 51 rat proteins. These assays were optimized in isolated mitochondrial fractions from mouse and rat liver and cultured human fibroblasts and in total liver extracts from mouse, rat, and human. The developed proteomics approach is suitable for the quantification of proteins in the mitochondrial energy metabolic pathways in mice, rats, and humans as a basis for translational research. Initial data show that the assays have great potential for elucidating the adaptive response of human patients to mutations in mitochondrial proteins in a clinical setting.

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

4.7
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