BACKGROUND: Proteomic analysis has become an effective tool in breast cancer research. In this study, we applied the new gel-free tandem mass tag (TMT) reference method for the first time in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Proteomic analysis was used to compare 10 estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and 10 ER-negative samples. The results of the proteomic approach were validated by Western blot, immunohistochemistry and gene expression analysis. RESULTS: 17 proteins with significant differences in expression were identified. 13 proteins were overexpressed in ER-negative tumors and 4 were overexpressed in ER-positive samples. All these proteins were characterized by relatively high cellular abundance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the gel-free TMT approach allows the quantification of differences in protein expression levels. Further improvement of the sensitivity by subfractionation of the tissue should allow also the identification of low-abundance proteins and might lead to the use of this method in breast cancer research.
BACKGROUND: Proteomic analysis has become an effective tool in breast cancer research. In this study, we applied the new gel-free tandem mass tag (TMT) reference method for the first time in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Proteomic analysis was used to compare 10 estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and 10 ER-negative samples. The results of the proteomic approach were validated by Western blot, immunohistochemistry and gene expression analysis. RESULTS: 17 proteins with significant differences in expression were identified. 13 proteins were overexpressed in ER-negative tumors and 4 were overexpressed in ER-positive samples. All these proteins were characterized by relatively high cellular abundance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the gel-free TMT approach allows the quantification of differences in protein expression levels. Further improvement of the sensitivity by subfractionation of the tissue should allow also the identification of low-abundance proteins and might lead to the use of this method in breast cancer research.
Authors: Julio E Celis; Irina Gromova; Pavel Gromov; José M A Moreira; Teresa Cabezón; Esbern Friis; Fritz Rank Journal: FEBS Lett Date: 2006-04-12 Impact factor: 4.124
Authors: Peter van Ulsen; Karsten Kuhn; Thorsten Prinz; Harald Legner; Peter Schmid; Christian Baumann; Jan Tommassen Journal: Proteomics Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Jörg Schneider; Markus Ruschhaupt; Andreas Buness; Martin Asslaber; Peter Regitnig; Kurt Zatloukal; Walter Schippinger; Ferdinand Ploner; Annemarie Poustka; Holger Sültmann Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Philip L Ross; Yulin N Huang; Jason N Marchese; Brian Williamson; Kenneth Parker; Stephen Hattan; Nikita Khainovski; Sasi Pillai; Subhakar Dey; Scott Daniels; Subhasish Purkayastha; Peter Juhasz; Stephen Martin; Michael Bartlet-Jones; Feng He; Allan Jacobson; Darryl J Pappin Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2004-09-22 Impact factor: 5.911