Cited by 20Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsMuscle Physiology and Disorders

Top-Down Proteomics Reveals Myofilament Proteoform Heterogeneity among Various Rat Skeletal Muscle Tissues

Open access
Melby, Jake A., Jin, Yutong, Lin, Ziqing, Tucholski, Trisha, Wu, Zhijie, Gregorich, Zachery R., Diffee, Gary M., Ge, Ying·2020·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

Heterogeneity in skeletal muscle contraction time, peak power output, and resistance to fatigue, among others, is necessary to accommodate the wide range of functional demands imposed on the body. Underlying this functional heterogeneity are a myriad of differences in the myofilament protein isoform expression and post-translational modifications; yet, characterizing this heterogeneity remains challenging. Herein, we have utilized top-down liquid chromatography (LC)-mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics to characterize myofilament proteoform heterogeneity in seven rat skeletal muscle tissues including vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, vastus intermedius, rectus femoris, soleus, gastrocnemius, and plantaris. Top-down proteomics revealed that myofilament proteoforms varied greatly across the seven different rat skeletal muscle tissues. Subsequently, we quantified and characterized myofilament proteoforms using online LC-MS. We have comprehensively characterized the fast and slow skeletal troponin I isoforms, which demonstrates the ability of top-down MS to decipher isoforms with high sequence homology. Taken together, we have shown that top-down proteomics can be used as a robust and high-throughput method to characterize the molecular heterogeneity of myofilament proteoforms from various skeletal muscle tissues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jproteome.9b00623

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Skeletal muscle is highly heterogeneous in its myofilament proteoforms.

    “Quantitative top-down proteomics discovered that there were distinct differences in the myofilament proteoforms found across the seven various rat skeletal muscle tissues, which demonstrates the highly heterogeneous nature of skeletal muscle (Figure 6) [154].”
  • Distinct differences in myofilament proteoforms were found across seven various rat skeletal muscle tissues.

    “Quantitative top-down proteomics discovered that there were distinct differences in the myofilament proteoforms found across the seven various rat skeletal muscle tissues, which demonstrates the highly heterogeneous nature of skeletal muscle (Figure 6) [154].”
  • Melby et al. performed top-down proteomics on seven different rat skeletal muscle tissues: vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, vastus intermedius, rectus femoris, soleus, gastrocnemius, and plantaris.

    “Melby et al. expanded upon this study by performing top-down proteomics on seven different rat skeletal muscle tissues: vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), vastus intermedius (VI), rectus femoris (RF), soleus (SOL), gastrocnemius (GAS), and plantaris (PLN) [154].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melby, J. A., Jin, Y., Lin, Z., Tucholski, T., Wu, Z., Gregorich, Z. R., Diffee, G. M., & Ge, Y.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Ge, Ying
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2019-10-24
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
446-454
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W2982218778
Cited by
20
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Proteome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL096971, HL109810)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM117058, GM125085)
  • NIH Instrumentation Grant (S10OD018475)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
Keywords
skeletal muscle, top-down proteomics, troponin I isoforms, post-translational modification, rat skeletal muscle, Vastu, soleus muscle, gastrocnemius, plantaris, rectus femoris, muscle contraction time, fatigue resistance
MeSH terms
Animals, Chromatography, Liquid, Electrophoresis, Polyacrylamide Gel, Male, Muscle Proteins, Myofibrils, Rats, Inbred F344, Muscle, Skeletal, Troponin T, Proteomics, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review