橄榄叶蛋白质组学蛋白质提取方案的比较分析:对差异蛋白质丰度和等电点分布的见解

IF 2.3 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Bihter Uçar, Merve Öztuğ, Mahmut Tör, Nurçin Çelik-Öztürk, Filiz Vardar and Birsen Cevher-Keskin*, 
{"title":"橄榄叶蛋白质组学蛋白质提取方案的比较分析:对差异蛋白质丰度和等电点分布的见解","authors":"Bihter Uçar,&nbsp;Merve Öztuğ,&nbsp;Mahmut Tör,&nbsp;Nurçin Çelik-Öztürk,&nbsp;Filiz Vardar and Birsen Cevher-Keskin*,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acsagscitech.4c0064210.1021/acsagscitech.4c00642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Plant proteomics studies face two major challenges: limited databases due to the need for sequenced genomes and the difficulty in obtaining high-quality protein extracts. Olive (<i>Olea europaea</i>), a key species in Mediterranean flora known for its rich biochemical content, presents additional complexity due to its lipidic structure and high levels of inhibitory compounds that hinder protein extraction. Consequently, various studies have focused on optimizing the protein extraction methods for olives. While different extraction protocols exist for leaf proteome analysis, their compatibility with LC–MS/MS has been scarcely studied. This work was carried out to compare three protein extraction protocols for LC–MS/MS analysis using olive (<i>O. europaea</i> L) leaf tissue. Denaturing SDS (Method A), physiological CHAPS (Method B), and phenolic TCA/acetone (Method C) were evaluated with LC–MS/MS data. The quantitative comparisons of the three extraction methods revealed that Protocol A gave the greatest yields. According to the results obtained, Protocol A uniquely identified 77 proteins, Protocol B identified 10 unique proteins, and Protocol C identified 19 unique proteins. Similarly, the peptide sequence analysis showed that Protocol A uniquely identified 208 peptide sequences, Protocol B identified 29, and Protocol C identified 36. Moreover, reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) results suggest that Method A may be more efficient in removing and retaining hydrophobic proteins. Overall, Protocol A demonstrated greater sensitivity, efficiency, and reproducibility in LC–MS/MS analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":93846,"journal":{"name":"ACS agricultural science & technology","volume":"5 5","pages":"739–749 739–749"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acsagscitech.4c00642","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Protein Extraction Protocols for Olive Leaf Proteomics: Insights into Differential Protein Abundance and Isoelectric Point Distribution\",\"authors\":\"Bihter Uçar,&nbsp;Merve Öztuğ,&nbsp;Mahmut Tör,&nbsp;Nurçin Çelik-Öztürk,&nbsp;Filiz Vardar and Birsen Cevher-Keskin*,&nbsp;\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acsagscitech.4c0064210.1021/acsagscitech.4c00642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Plant proteomics studies face two major challenges: limited databases due to the need for sequenced genomes and the difficulty in obtaining high-quality protein extracts. Olive (<i>Olea europaea</i>), a key species in Mediterranean flora known for its rich biochemical content, presents additional complexity due to its lipidic structure and high levels of inhibitory compounds that hinder protein extraction. Consequently, various studies have focused on optimizing the protein extraction methods for olives. While different extraction protocols exist for leaf proteome analysis, their compatibility with LC–MS/MS has been scarcely studied. This work was carried out to compare three protein extraction protocols for LC–MS/MS analysis using olive (<i>O. europaea</i> L) leaf tissue. Denaturing SDS (Method A), physiological CHAPS (Method B), and phenolic TCA/acetone (Method C) were evaluated with LC–MS/MS data. The quantitative comparisons of the three extraction methods revealed that Protocol A gave the greatest yields. According to the results obtained, Protocol A uniquely identified 77 proteins, Protocol B identified 10 unique proteins, and Protocol C identified 19 unique proteins. Similarly, the peptide sequence analysis showed that Protocol A uniquely identified 208 peptide sequences, Protocol B identified 29, and Protocol C identified 36. Moreover, reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) results suggest that Method A may be more efficient in removing and retaining hydrophobic proteins. Overall, Protocol A demonstrated greater sensitivity, efficiency, and reproducibility in LC–MS/MS analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93846,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS agricultural science & technology\",\"volume\":\"5 5\",\"pages\":\"739–749 739–749\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acsagscitech.4c00642\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS agricultural science & technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsagscitech.4c00642\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS agricultural science & technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsagscitech.4c00642","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

植物蛋白质组学研究面临两个主要挑战:由于需要测序基因组而导致的数据库有限,以及难以获得高质量的蛋白质提取物。橄榄(Olea europaea)是地中海植物群中的一个重要物种,以其丰富的生化成分而闻名,由于其脂质结构和高水平的抑制化合物阻碍了蛋白质的提取,因此呈现出额外的复杂性。因此,各种研究都集中在优化橄榄的蛋白质提取方法上。虽然目前存在不同的叶片蛋白质组分析提取方案,但其与LC-MS /MS的相容性研究很少。本研究比较了橄榄(O. europaea L)叶片组织中三种蛋白质提取方法的LC-MS /MS分析。用LC-MS /MS数据对变性SDS(方法A)、生理性CHAPS(方法B)和酚性TCA/丙酮(方法C)进行评价。三种提取方法的定量比较表明,方案A的产量最大。根据获得的结果,方案A唯一鉴定了77个蛋白,方案B唯一鉴定了10个蛋白,方案C唯一鉴定了19个蛋白。同样,肽序列分析显示,方案A唯一识别出208个肽序列,方案B唯一识别出29个,方案C唯一识别出36个。此外,反相高效液相色谱(RP-HPLC)结果表明,方法A可能更有效地去除和保留疏水蛋白。总体而言,方案A在LC-MS /MS分析中表现出更高的灵敏度、效率和重现性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Protein Extraction Protocols for Olive Leaf Proteomics: Insights into Differential Protein Abundance and Isoelectric Point Distribution

Plant proteomics studies face two major challenges: limited databases due to the need for sequenced genomes and the difficulty in obtaining high-quality protein extracts. Olive (Olea europaea), a key species in Mediterranean flora known for its rich biochemical content, presents additional complexity due to its lipidic structure and high levels of inhibitory compounds that hinder protein extraction. Consequently, various studies have focused on optimizing the protein extraction methods for olives. While different extraction protocols exist for leaf proteome analysis, their compatibility with LC–MS/MS has been scarcely studied. This work was carried out to compare three protein extraction protocols for LC–MS/MS analysis using olive (O. europaea L) leaf tissue. Denaturing SDS (Method A), physiological CHAPS (Method B), and phenolic TCA/acetone (Method C) were evaluated with LC–MS/MS data. The quantitative comparisons of the three extraction methods revealed that Protocol A gave the greatest yields. According to the results obtained, Protocol A uniquely identified 77 proteins, Protocol B identified 10 unique proteins, and Protocol C identified 19 unique proteins. Similarly, the peptide sequence analysis showed that Protocol A uniquely identified 208 peptide sequences, Protocol B identified 29, and Protocol C identified 36. Moreover, reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) results suggest that Method A may be more efficient in removing and retaining hydrophobic proteins. Overall, Protocol A demonstrated greater sensitivity, efficiency, and reproducibility in LC–MS/MS analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信