Method optimization for proteomic analysis of soybean leaf: Improvements in identification of new and low-abundance proteins.

The most critical step in any proteomic study is protein extraction and sample preparation. Better solubilization increases the separation and resolution of gels, allowing identification of a higher number of proteins and more accurate quantitation of differences in gene expression. Despite the existence of published results for the optimization of proteomic analyses of soybean seeds, no comparable data are available for proteomic studies of soybean leaf tissue. In this work we have tested the effects of modification of a TCA-acetone method on the resolution of 2-DE gels of leaves and roots of soybean. Better focusing was obtained when both mercaptoethanol and dithiothreitol were used in the extraction buffer simultaneously. Increasing the number of washes of TCA precipitated protein with acetone, using a final wash with 80% ethanol and using sonication to ressuspend the pellet increased the number of detected proteins as well the resolution of the 2-DE gels. Using this approach we have constructed a soybean protein map. The major group of identified proteins corresponded to genes of unknown function. The second and third most abundant groups of proteins were composed of photosynthesis and metabolism related genes. The resulting protocol improved protein solubility and gel resolution allowing the identification of 122 soybean leaf proteins, 72 of which were not detected in other published soybean leaf 2-DE gel datasets, including a transcription factor and several signaling proteins.

Introduction

Two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2-DE) is the most widely used method for comparison of quantitative changes in the protein proles of cells, tissues or whole organisms (Herbert ). 2-DE is capable of resolving hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of proteins in a single separation procedure.

One of the major limitations of 2-DE methods in proteomics is the fact that low-abundance proteins are rarely seen in traditional 2-D maps, whilst most proteins in vivo are present at low abundance. These low-abundance proteins obviously perform very important roles and include transcription factors, signal transduction proteins and receptors. This limitation of 2-DE methods could be due either to the presence of overwhelming quantities of abundant soluble proteins which obscure the detection of low-abundance proteins or to the fact that these low-abundance proteins may not be completely solubilized prior to 2-DE. Efficient solubilization of protein samples is critical for high performance 2-D electrophoresis.

The most critical step in any proteomics study is protein extraction and sample preparation (Rose ). Protein extraction methods can vary widely in reproducibility and representation of the total proteome. Better solubilization increases the separation and resolution of gels allowing identification of a higher number of proteins and more accurate quantification of differences in gene expression. Plant tissues, when compared to animal tissues, often contain lower protein concentrations and extraction is often rendered difficult by the presence of interfering compounds, such as secondary metabolites, phenolic compounds, lipids, nucleic acids, the cell wall and storage polysaccharides. Some of these compounds may interact with proteins and give poor resolution and high background in 2-DE gels. Phenol extraction methods have been developed to overcome some of these problems, but this method may reduce protein yield, is time consuming and requires the use of toxic phenol.

Several publications detailing soybean proteomics are available, with the majority of these publications addressing changes in the proteome of seeds, roots, nodules and hypocotyls (Mooney ; Hajduch ; Wan ; Natarajan , 2006; Djordjevic ; Arai ; Oehrle ; Brechenmacher ; Nanjo ; Komatsu , 2011; Zhang ). Some of these results are also contained in the Soybean Proteome Database (Sakata ). Proteomic analyses of soybean leaf, on the other hand, are scarce. In the Soybean Database, only one gel is available, which presents poor resolution and sequencing of only 17 peptides (one peptide per spot) via Edman degradation. Krishnan and Natarajan (2009), using a phenol extraction method, have reported a fractionation technique using 10 mM Ca2+ and 10 mM phytate to precipitate Rubisco from soybean leaf soluble protein extract, and identified only 52 proteins. Ahsan , using a TCA/acetone method, reported the identification of 54 proteins in leaves under heat stress, the majority of these proteins being chaperones.

No published work exists where different methods are compared or optimized for analysis of the leaf proteome in soybean, and despite the great number of proteins expressed in leaves, the results together do not allow identification of more than 100 proteins in this organ. Here we report an improved method for soybean leaf proteome analysis and the identification of 122 leaf proteins, 72 of which, based on published articles and the soybean proteomics web site, have not previously been detected in leaves.

Material and Methods

The TCA/acetone protein extraction method was chosen for optimization (Shen ). Around 0.2 g of insoluble PVP (PVPP) was added to 1 g fresh weight of frozen leaves and this mixture was ground under liquid nitrogen. Immediately before thawing, 2 mL of a modified extraction buffer was added (Tris-HCl 40 mM (pH 7.5) 250 mM sucrose, 10 mM EDTA, 1% Triton X-100, 1 mM PMSF; 1 mM DTT; 2% (v/v) β-mercaptoethanol) and extraction was performed for 2 h at 4 °C. Cellular debris was removed by centrifugation at 6,000 × g for 15 min at 4 °C, and a second centrifugation of the supernatant was performed to completely remove any insoluble components. The precipitation of soluble proteins was performed by adding trichloroacetic acid (TCA) to a final concentration of 10% (w/v) in cold acetone for 16 h at −20 °C. The protein pellet was harvested by centrifugation at 6,000 × g for 15 min at 4 °C. The sediment was washed 4 times with cold acetone (10 mL each), and a final wash with ethanol 80% was carried out to remove the excess acetone and to improve the further steps of solubilization of the pellet. The pellet was dried by vacuum centrifugation at room temperature, and re-suspended in a modified 2-DE buffer (7 M urea, 2 M thiourea, 2% CHAPS, 100 mM DTT and 2% IPG buffer (pH 4–7, ampholytes)). Complete solubilization was achieved by sonication with three pulses of 15 s at 1500 Hz. Protein concentration was determined by the Bradford method (Bradford, 1976), using BSA to construct a calibration curve.

The first-dimension IEF was performed using 24 cm linear IPG strips (pH 4–7) in the IPGphor system (GE Healthcare). All IPG strips were rehydrated for 16 h with 250 μL of rehydration buffer (8 M urea, 2% CHAPS, 0.5% ampholytes, 0.002% bromophenol blue) containing 1 mg of protein. Voltage settings for IEF were 250 V for 1 h, 500 V for 1 h, followed by a gradient from 1000–7000 V until achievement of a total of 5.2 kVh, followed by running at 8000 V to achieve 40 kVh. The focused strips were either electrophoresed runned immediately on a 2-D gel or stored at −80 °C until further use. For the 2-D gel electrophoresis, the gel strips were incubated with equilibration buffer 1 [50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.8), 6 M urea, 30% glycerol, 2% SDS, 0.002% bromophenol blue, 1% DTT] and equilibration buffer 2 [50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.8), 6 M urea, 30% glycerol, 2% SDS, 0.002% bromophenol blue, 2.5% iodoacetamide] for 15 min each and subsequently placed onto 12.5% polyacrylamide gel (26 × 32 cm) with a Tris-glycine buffer system as described by Laemmli (1970). Strips were overlaid with agarose sealing solution (0.25 M Tris base, 1.92 M glycine, 1% SDS, 0.5% agarose, 0.002% bromophenol blue) using an Ettan Daltsix electrophoresis system (GE Healthcare). the initial 2D eletrophoresis setting was 5 W (constant and maximal 20 mA), followed by a separation run for 6 h using 12 W per gel (constant and maximal 50 mA). The 2D-PAGE gels were visualized by staining with colloidal Coomassie blue G-250 as described by Newsholme . The gels were fixed overnight in 50% ethanol and 3% phosphoric acid and then washed three times for 30 min with distilled water. Gels were pre-stained for 1 h in 34% methanol, 17% ammonium sulfate and 3% phosphoric acid and then stained for 2 days in the same solution containing Coomassie blue G-250 (0.066%). Image acquisition was done using an ImageScanner III (GE Healthcare) and images were analyzed using ImageMaster 2D Platinum v. 7 software (GE Healthcare).

Protein spots were excised from the stained gels and washed first with distilled water to remove ammonium sulfate and then with 50% acetonitrile containing 25 mM ammonium bicarbonate to destain the gel plugs. The gel plugs were dehydrated with 100% acetonitrile, dried under vacuum, and then re-swollen with 20 μL of 10 μg/mL trypsin (modified porcine trypsin, sequencing grade, Promega, Madison, WI, USA) in 25 mM ammonium bicarbonate. Digestion was performed overnight at 37 °C. The resulting tryptic fragments were extracted by sonication in 50% acetonitrile and 5% trifluoroacetic acid. The extracts were dried and then dissolved in 50% acetonitrile and 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid.

MALDI-TOF-MS analysis of tryptic peptides was performed using a Bruker UltraFlexIII spectrometer. Samples were co-crystallized with CHCA matrix and spectra acquired with 40 shots of a 337 nm nitrogen laser operating at 20 Hz. Protein identification was done by searching the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) non-redundant database using the Mascot search engine and a probability-based scoring system (Perkins ). The following parameters were used for database searches with MALDI-TOF peptide mass fingerprinting data: monoisotopic mass, 25 ppm mass accuracy, trypsin as digesting enzyme with one missed cleavage allowed, carbamidomethylation of cysteine as a fixed modification, oxidation of methionine, N-terminal pyroglutamic acid from glutamic acid or glutamine according to variable modifications.

For database searches with MS/MS spectra, the following parameters were used: average mass; 1.5 Da peptide and MS/MS mass tolerance; peptide charge of +1, +2 or +3; trypsin as digesting enzyme with 1 missed cleavage allowed; carbamidomethylation of cysteine as a fixed modification; oxidation of methionine, N-terminal pyroglutamic acid from glutamic acid or glutamine according to variable modifications. For MALDI-TOF-MS data to qualify as a positive identification, a protein’s score had to equal or exceed the minimum significant score (Perkins ). Positive identification of proteins by MS/MS analysis required a minimum of two unique peptides, with at least one peptide having a significant ion score.

Results and Discussion

To evaluate the effect of the modifications to the TCA/acetone method, protein extractions were carried out using leaves and roots of soybean plants collected five weeks after germination. The phenol-base method (Wang ), the original TCA/acetone method and the modified TCA/acetone method described here were tested using three biological replicates (three different extracts for each method from three different plants). An example of the 2-DE gels using 1 mg protein extract is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

2-DE gel of protein from leaves and roots of soybean extracted using different methods. (A and C) - Leaf and root protein respectively extracted using the phenol-based method and (B and D) - Leaf and root protein respectively, extracted using the TCA/acetone method without modifications.

As evidenced in Figure 1 A and C, the phenol-based method resulted in a higher level of subunits of the enzyme ribulose 1,5 bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Rubisco). Furthermore, lower resolution was observed. This result is important for attempts to help improve the detection of low-abundance proteins in 2-DE gels of leaf protein. In leaves, Rubisco represents around 50% and 30% of total protein in C3 and C4 plants respectively (Feller ). This high abundance hinders proteomic assessment of low-abundance proteins (Xi ) and masks the ability of neighboring proteins to be detected (Corthalis ; Shaw and Riederer, 2003; Cho ). It also significantly limits the dynamic resolution of the gel (Herman ). Krishnan and Natarajan (2009) described a method using a TCA/acetone extraction procedure together with a phytic acid treatment to deplete Rubisco in soybean leaf 2-DE gels. However, the number of proteins detected by these authors was in fact lower than that obtained when using the unmodified TCA/acetone method (511 spots versus 582 when using the phenol method). These results suggest that additional changes to the protocol, besides Rubisco depletion, are needed to increase the number of detectable proteins. In contrast to the situation with leaf tissue, the unmodified TCA/acetone method increases the number of spots detected in roots (634 spots using the phenol method versus 705). These differences support the inference that different sample preparation methods are required to produce optimal 2-DE results from different plant organs.

The effect of the modifications to the TCA/acetone method can be observed in Figure 2. A comparison between Figures 2A and 2B indicates that the modifications made to the TCA/acetone method improved both the solubilization of proteins and gel resolution, as indicated by the increase in spot number by 57% and 5.4% in leaf and root respectively (in leaves, 802 spots in modified method versus 511, and 743 to 705 in roots). No significant differences in the content of the large and small Rubisco subunits were observed with the modification of this method. These results ilustrate that significant increase in protein detection in 2D gels could be obtained by increase in solubilizatio besides no changes in Rubisco content. Particularly interesting is the increase in low molecular weight proteins in leaves resulting from the introduced modifications. These differences were reproducible and seen in all three repetitions for each method (data not shown). Effects of the modified method on the root proteome were also observed (Figures 2C,D), although the improvement was not as clear as that observed for leaf tissue. In roots, the number of spots also increased with the modifications made to the method, but the problem of low resolution in the region of low PI/higher molecular weight still remained, despite the improvement in resolution for higher pI proteins and the fact that more proteins were detected overall.

Figure 2

Effect of modification of the TCA/acetone method on the resolution of 2-DE gels. (A and C) - Gels using protein extracted and prepared using the original TCA/Acetone method. (B and D) - Gels using protein extracted and prepared using the TCA/Acetone method with modifications. Extracts are from leaf (A and B) and root (C and D) tissue.

The improvements in the resolution of 2-DE gels for leaf tissue (Figure 3) were reflected by the successful identification of 122 proteins, based on the peptides matched in the NCBI protein bank, as described in Table 1. Figure 3 also shows that proteins coding for the large subunit of Rubisco are separated into several spots around the 53 KDa region of the gels.

Figure 3

Leaf proteome map indicating proteins identified by MALDI-TOF-MS peptide mass fingerprinting obtained from peptide fragments of trypsin digested proteins. The numbered spots indicate proteins identified and described in Table 1.

Table 1

Proteins identified in the soybean leaf proteome using the proposed extraction method, with the number as indicated in protein map in Figure 3. MW/pI: theoretical protein molecular weight and isoelectric point. MO: MOWSE score; PM: number of peptides with matches in the PMF; SC: sequence coverage.

Spot #	NCBI closest homologue	MW/pI	MO	PM	SC (%)	Accession number
29	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	70	11	31	gi|223507406
30	Heat shock protein 70 (Cucumis sativus)	75480/5.15	164	16	25	gi|1143427
31	Heat shock protein, putative (Ricinus communis)	75431/5.35	131	23	30	gi|223534226
32	Endoplasmic reticulum HSC70-cognate binding protein precursor (Glycine max)	73822/5.15	92	14	21	gi|2642238
33	Calmodulin-2 (Glycine max)	16878/4.11	39	4	30	calm2_soybn
35	Endoplasmic reticulum HSC70-cognate binding protein precursor (Glycine max)	73822/5.15	88	15	23	gi|218199537
36	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	72	12	37	gi|223507406
38	Unknown (Zea mays)	46413/8.48	70	9	24	gi|224029795
50	Ubiquinol-cytochrome c reductase complex 14 kDa protein (Zea mays)	14676/9.78	59	7	45	gi|195627658
61	Unnamed protein product (Vitis vinifera)	82205/6.18	68	15	21	gi|157345364
64	Predicted protein (Micromonas pusilla CCMP1545)	148047/8.96	64	22	17	gi|226460779
66	ATP synthase subunit alpha, chloroplastic	10615/9.97	76	6	71	gi|115502358
70	Hypothetical protein (Vitis vinifera)	25360/9.67	48	5	28	gi|147857970
71	Hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_09g004780 (Sorghum bicolor)	84711/5.68	62	12	20	gi|242089665
78	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (Falkia repens)	52003/6.20	204	19	43	gi|21634087
79	ATP synthase CF1 beta subunit (Caulerpa taxifolia)	14446/5.40	60	8	52	gi|219964549
81	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (Falkia repens)	52003/6.20	113	17	33	gi|21634087
95	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (Chrysophyllum oliviforme)	52005/6.14	130	15	32	gi|37194725
100	Hypothetical protein (Vitis vinifera)	22800/5.50	63	7	40	gi|147776335
109	Alanine aminotransferase 2 (Glycine max)	53863/5.42	127	20	49	gi|158122137
112	Hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_01g013800 (Sorghum bicolor)	25399/9.32	58	5	21	gi|242033585
125	Unknown (Zea mays)	46413/8.48	70	8	20	gi|224029795
126	Predicted protein (Populus trichocarpa)	42891/9.87	56	8	28	gi|224053192
129	Predicted: hypothetical protein isoform 2 (Vitis vinifera)	23816/7.68	60	7	38	gi|225433648
140	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (Prunus armeniaca var. ansu)	52018/6.63	90	13	27	gi|15987084
143	ATP synthase, beta subunit (Iphigenia indica)	52668/5.16	65	11	21	gi|16943743
144	Glutamine synthetase precursor (Glycine max)	47948/6.73	92	13	39	gi|13877511
147	Os07g0622700 (Oryza sativa (japonica cultivar-group)	36403/8.51	57	8	26	gi|115473437
147	ATP synthase beta subunit (Schoepfia schreberi)	30447/5.12	70	10	31	gi|14718214
148	Cytosolic glutamine synthetase GSbeta1 (Glycine max)	39138/5.48	76	9	30	gi|125550665
151	Glutamine synthetase precursor (Glycine max)	47948/6.73	67	12	28	gi|13877511
161	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase alpha 2 (Gossypium hirsutum)	46944/4.84	80	11	30	gi|78100212
163	Rubisco activase, chloroplast precursor (Vigna radiata)	48042/7.57	123	13	40	gi|10720249
165	Rubisco activase, chloroplast precursor (Vigna radiata)	48042/7.57	123	13	40	gi|10720249
172	Phosphoribulose kinase, putative (Ricinus communis)	45221/5.83	68	13	29	gi|223541989
174	Leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase At1g09970 (Arabidopsis thaliana)	36335/5.76	68	9	24	gi|62321062
215	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (Chionochloa acicularis)	1851/5.91	62	4	100	gi|167782336
216	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	71	10	33	gi|223507406
222	Ribosomal protein subunit 2 (Phelipanche arenaria)	21334/9.32	77	12	42	gi|83745361
228	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	76	11	38	gi|223507406
234	Predicted protein (Populus trichocarpa)	43420/6.93	89	11	26	gi|224096552
237	Chloroplast translational elongation factor Tu (Oryza sativa)	50551/6.05	62	7	24	gi|6525065
240	Hypothetical protein OsI_12352 (Oryza sativa Indica Group)	7143/10.25	58	5	61	gi|218193198
254	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	71	10	38	gi|223507406
259	Predicted: similar to thioredoxin-related protein isoform 2 (Vitis vinifera)	30695/8.09	74	10	29	gi|225440205
265	Aldehyde oxidase 1 (Lactuca sativa)	151096/6.34	80	13	10	gi|84579422
284	Chain A, Wild-Type Pea Fnr	35060/6.54	77	14	36	gi|4930123
287	Ferredoxin—NADP reductase, chloroplastic; Short = FNR; Flags: Precursor (Vicia faba)	40838/8.70	99	18	37	gi|729479
335	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (Hypserpa nitida)	52058/6.04	132	19	31	gi|229464412
374	Triosephosphate isomerase (Glycine max)	27415/5.87	145	14	53	gi|77540216
383	Elongation factor 2 (EF-2) (Beta vulgaris)	94708/5.93	63	7	49	O23755
407	Hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_05g010323 (Sorghum bicolor)	46371/8.99	63	11	38	gi|242068295
451	Predicted protein (Populus trichocarpa)	42891/9.88	66	9	31	gi|224053192
452	Hypothetical protein OsI_38632 (Oryza sativa Indica Group)	12206/10.42	44	5	45	gi|125536931
454	Os02g0762300 (Oryza sativa (japonica cultivar-group))	41702/8.86	64	6	18	gi|115448847
474	PSII Oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 2 precursor	19825/4.81	75	12	35	gi|16995778
498	Unknown (Picea sitchensis)	18083/5.89	59	5	34	gi|116780837
510	Unknown (Zea mays)	46413/8.48	72	7	22	gi|224029795
602	ATP synthase beta subunit (Utricularia biflora)	51814/5.09	98	13	25	gi|7688411
611	AT5G50010 (Arabidopsis thaliana)	31261/5.44	57	7	26	gi|227202838
651	Unnamed protein product (Arabidopsis thaliana)	66243/4.95	63	9	14	gi|9294322
656	ATP synthase CF1 alpha subunit (Glycine max)	55776/5.16	127	18	37	gi|91214148
656	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	68	11	35	gi|223507406
658	ATP synthase CF1 alpha subunit (Glycine max)	55776/5.15	69	14	27	gi|91214148
671	Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase large subunit (Psoralea aculeata)	52062/6.04	139	23	39	gi|125991557
683	Methionine synthase (Glycine max)	84401/5.93	141	21	30	gi|33325957
684	Hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_04g004825 (Sorghum bicolor)	6932/9.30	48	4	63	gi|242060674
688	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	73	10	29	gi|223507406
689	Ribulose-biphosphate carboxylase (Mangonia tweedieana)	51846/6.05	159	23	42	gi|209417523
691	Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase large subunit (Rhynchosia minima)	51975/6.14	166	20	38	gi|18157319
725	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	64	10	29	gi|223507406
732	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit (Croton yucatanensis)	52205/6.09	98	16	37	gi|126166052
793	Ubiquinol-cytochrome c reductase complex 14 kDa protein (Zea mays)	14676/9.78	50	7	43	gi|195627658
799	Hypothetical protein (Vitis vinifera)	42045/7.58	62	11	26	gi|147797309
807	Unknown (Picea sitchensis)	18942/6.30	48	6	34	gi|116792186
809	PSII Oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 1, chloroplast precursor (Pisum sativum)	35100/6.25	91	9	27	gi|131384
809	Cytosolic malate dehydrogenase (Glycine max)	35846/6.32	68	10	31	gi|42521311
815	PSII oxygen-evolving complex protein 3 (Nicotiana tabacum)	35377/5.89	85	9	31	gi|505482
821	AT1G66510 (Arabidopsis thaliana)	25242/6.45	59	8	38	gi|227202636
822	Hypothetical protein (Vitis vinifera)	36723/8.02	71	12	34	gi|147845283
822	Superoxide dismutase (Fe), chloroplastic; Flags: Precursor (Glycine max)	27881/5.60	58	7	33	gi|134646
831	cytosolic malate dehydrogenase (Glycine max)	35846/6.33	63	11	34	gi|42521311
833	Hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_02g031280 (Sorghum bicolor)	19264/4.56	60	5	40	gi|242050004
847	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	62	10	31	gi|223507406
854	Rubisco small subunit rbcS2 (Glycine max)	20220/8.87	91	6	28	gi|10946377
858	Rubisco small chain 4, chloroplast precursor (Glycine max)	20232/8.87	301	6	26	gi|132113
873	Unnamed protein product (Vitis vinifera)	29280/6.06	101	17	39	gi|157335145
877	Rubisco small subunit rbcS2 (Glycine max)	20220/8.87	175	15	57	gi|10946377
878	Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase small subunit rbcS1 (Glycine max)	20220/8.87	108	11	58	gi|10946375
878	Chain A, Wild-Type Pea Fnr	35060/6.54	84	15	44	gi|4930123
885	Hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_05g010323 (Sorghum bicolor)	46371/8.99	60	12	34	gi|242068295
886	Superoxide dismutase (Fe), chloroplastic; Flags: Precursor (Glycine max)	27881/5.60	69	9	35	gi|134646
887	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	9604/5.49	73	7	61	gi|223536954
890	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	66	10	29	gi|223507406
892	Annexin, putative (Ricinus communis)	36405/6.81	59	10	40	gi|223546996
896	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	123963/8.64	70	13	13	gi|223527844
906	Hypothetical protein MtrDRAFT_AC149204g22v2 (Medicago truncatula)	11312/7.82	57	4	30	gi|124359573
907	R2R3-MYB transcription factor (Arabidopsis thaliana)	5365/10.15	63	5	95	gi|2832490
916	Unknown (Zea mays)	46413/8.48	53	8	21	gi|224029795
919	Predicted protein (Micromonas sp. RCC299)	164898/5.23	64	22	16	gi|226517782
925	Ubiquinol-cytochrome c reductase complex 14 kDa protein (Zea mays)	14676/9.78	54	5	33	gi|195627658
930	Os04g0490800 (Oryza sativa (japonica cultivar-group))	39811/6.75	66	10	30	gi|115459134
945	Hypothetical protein OsJ_14092 (Oryza sativa Japonica Group)	12140/9.69	56	7	58	gi|222628516
949	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	65	11	35	gi|223507406
952	Unknown (Zea mays)	46413/8.48	64	8	20	gi|224029795
953	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	9764/9.3	58	7	61	gi|223549561
965	Granule-bound starch synthase I (Eragrostis advena)	25908/8.52	62	11	55	gi|46326782
966	Hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_04g010090 (Sorghum bicolor)	22728/6.07	56	6	38	gi|242064756
973	Superoxide dismutase (Fe), chloroplastic; Flags: Precursor (Glycine max)	27881/5.60	74	10	39	gi|134646
975	Iron-superoxide dismutase (Glycine max)	27506/5.45	92	12	43	gi|37654895
979	Maturase K (Boerhavia coccinea)	32576/9.98	61	7	29	gi|15340912
981	Iron-superoxide dismutase (Glycine max)	27506/5.45	71	8	34	gi|37654895
996	Predicted protein (Populus trichocarpa)	46287/9.41	66	12	26	gi|224077440
1003	Predicted protein (Populus trichocarpa)	26058/8.97	64	7	37	gi|224103329
1014	Iron-superoxide dismutase (Glycine max)	27506/5.45	77	10	37	gi|37654895
1096	Ubiquinol-cytochrome c reductase complex 14 kDa protein (Zea mays)	14676/9.78	59	7	43	gi|195627658
1097	Conserved hypothetical protein (Ricinus communis)	37517/7.64	54	9	26	gi|223507406
1112	Nucleoside diphosphate kinase (Glycine max)	16402/6.91	73	7	41	gi|26245395
1437	ATP synthase beta subunit (Nepenthes alata)	53059/5.09	71	13	30	gi|6017816
1618	Predicted protein (Ostreococcus lucimarinus)	84020/6.65	63	10	16	gi|145352412
1637	Hypothetical protein OsI_18273 (Oryza sativa Indica)	41096/6.53	63	10	30	gi|125550665

Although several additional proteins could potentially be identified, we used a Mowse score of 40 as a minimum confidence threshold for identification in this study. This score varied from 44 to 175 across identified proteins, with an average of 80 in this dataset (a score greater than 67% means identification is significant at p < 0.05), while the number of peptide matches/protein identified varied between 4 and 27 (average of 11), and the sequence coverage varied between 13% and 100% (average of 35%).

The functional classification of the identified proteins is presented in Figure 4. Almost 50% of the identified proteins corresponded to proteins with unknown function, these representing the largest group. Proteins involved in primary metabolism represented the second largest group, which includes genes involved in photosynthesis, respiration and biosynthetic metabolism, the latter mainly represented by enzymes involved in amino acid biosynthesis.

Figure 4

Distribution of soybean leaf proteins identified using 2-DE between functional classes. The proteins used for these calculations are described in Table 1.

The fact that a transcription factor and some proteins involved in signaling were present in the small part of the leaf proteome analyzed indicates that some low-abundance proteins could be quantified using the 2-DE method presented herein. For yeast, the most abundant proteins are present at around 2,000,000 copies per cell, which represents 4% of total protein, whereas the least abundant proteins, which likely includes transcription factors and signaling proteins (Futcher ), are present at around 100 copies per cell (a difference of four orders of magnitude). Low-abundance proteins are generally considered difficult or even impossible to detect using 2-D gel electrophoresis (Görg ; Krishnan and Natarajan, 2009), while genes of unknown function typically encode low-abundance proteins. Taken together, these facts are indicative that the modifications made to the TCA/acetone method allow increased detection of proteins expressed at low levels. This in turn can be partially explained by both increases in protein solubility. Based on published results and those available in the Soybean Proteomic Database that describe soybean leaf proteins (Krishnan and Natarajan, 2009; Sakata ; Ahsan ), we were able to add 72 new proteins to the soybean 2-DE profile, the majority of these being proteins of low abundance.