4.7 Article

Up-to-Date Workflow for Plant (Phospho)proteomics Identifies Differential Drought-Responsive Phosphorylation Events in Maize Leaves

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 4304-4317

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00348

关键词

phosphoproteomics; maize; Arabidopsis; drought stress; database

资金

  1. VIB International Ph.D. program fellowship
  2. European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme [FP7] [339341-AMAIZE]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein phosphorylation is one of the most common post-translational modifications (PTMs), which can regulate protein activity and localization as well as proteinprotein interactions in numerous cellular processes. Phosphopeptide enrichment techniques enable plant researchers to acquire insight into phosphorylation-controlled signaling networks in various plant species. Most phosphoproteome analyses of plant samples still involve stable isotope labeling, peptide fractionation, and demand a lot of mass spectrometry (MS) time. Here, we present a simple workflow to probe, map, and catalogue plant phosphoproteomes, requiring relatively low amounts of starting material, no labeling, no fractionation, and no excessive analysis time. Following optimization of the different experimental steps on Arabidopsis thaliana samples, we transferred our workflow to maize, a major monocot crop, to study signaling upon drought stress. In addition, we included normalization to protein abundance to identify true phosphorylation changes. Overall, we identified a set of new phosphosites in both Arabidopsis thaliana and maize, some of which are differentially phosphorylated upon drought. All data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD003634, but to provide easy access to our model plant and crop data sets, we created an online database, Plant PTM Viewer (bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/ptm_viewer/), where all phosphosites identified in our study can be consulted.

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