4.2 Review

Middle-down proteomics: a still unexploited resource for chromatin biology

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF PROTEOMICS
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 617-626

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14789450.2017.1345632

关键词

Chromatin; cross-talk; histones; mass spectrometry; middle-down; post-translational modifications; proteomics

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health [R01GM110174, P01CA196539]
  2. U.S. Department of Defense [W81XWH-113-1-0426]
  3. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Analysis of histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) by mass spectrometry (MS) has become a fundamental tool for the characterization of chromatin composition and dynamics. Histone PTMs benchmark several biological states of chromatin, including regions of active enhancers, active/repressed gene promoters and damaged DNA. These complex regulatory mechanisms are often defined by combinatorial histone PTMs; for instance, active enhancers are commonly occupied by both marks H3K4me1 and H3K27ac. The traditional bottom-up MS strategy identifies and quantifies short (aa 4-20) tryptic peptides, and it is thus not suitable for the characterization of combinatorial PTMs.Areas covered: Here, we review the advancement of the middle-down MS strategy applied to histones, which consists in the analysis of intact histone N-terminal tails (aa 50-60). Middle-down MS has reached sufficient robustness and reliability, and it is far less technically challenging than PTM quantification on intact histones (top-down). However, the very few chromatin biology studies applying middle-down MS resulting from PubMed searches indicate that it is still very scarcely exploited, potentially due to the apparent high complexity of method and analysis.Expert commentary: We will discuss the state-of-the-art workflow and examples of existing studies, aiming to highlight its potential and feasibility for studies of cell biologists interested in chromatin and epigenetics.

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

4.2
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