Protein profiling of sickle cell versus control RBC core membrane skeletons by ICAT technology and tandem mass spectrometry

Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters

Pankaj K. Choudhary¹  Steven R. Goodman³  Jose Chou² 

[1] Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$The Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Technology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$;Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$The Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Technology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$;Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$The Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Technology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA$$Department of Cell Biology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA$$

关键词: Proteomics;    Cleavable ICAT;    Ion trap mass spectrometry;    RBC membrane skeleton;    Sickle cell;   

DOI  :  10.2478/s11658-006-0026-2

学科分类：分子生物学，细胞生物学和基因

来源: Uniwersytet Wroclawski * Wydzial Biotechnologii / University of Wroclaw, Faculty of Biotechnology

【 摘 要 】

A proteomic approach using a cleavable ICAT reagent and nano-LC ESI tandem mass spectrometry was used to perform protein profiling of core RBC membrane skeleton proteins between sickle cell patients (SS) and controls (AA), and determine the efficacy of this technology. The data was validated through Peptide/Protein Prophet and protein ratios were calculated through ASAPratio. Through an ANOVA test, it was determined that there is no significant difference in the mean ratios from control populations (AA1/AA2) and sickle cell versus control populations (AA/SS). The mean ratios were not significantly different from 1.0 in either comparison for the core skeleton proteins (α spectrin, β spectrin, band 4.1 and actin). On the natural-log scale, the variation (standard deviation) of the method was determined to be 14.1% and the variation contributed by the samples was 13.8% which together give a total variation of 19.7% in the ratios.

【 授权许可】

Unknown