Cited by 51Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies

Gel-based mass spectrometric analysis of a strongly hydrophobic GABAA-receptor subunit containing four transmembrane domains

Kang, Sung-Ung, Fuchs, Karoline, Sieghart, Werner, Pollak, Arnold, Csaszar, Edina, Lubec, Gert·2009·Nature Protocols

Abstract

The analysis of highly hydrophobic proteins is still an analytical challenge. Using a recombinant gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA)-receptor subunit as a model protein, we developed a gel-based proteomic approach for high MS/MS-peptide sequence coverage identification. Protein samples were separated by multi-dimensional gel electrophoresis and the three protein spots representing the GABAA-receptor subunit alpha-1 from the last electrophoretic step were used for in-gel digestion with trypsin, chymotrypsin and subtilisin, followed by subsequent mass-spectrometric identification by nano-ESI-LC-MS/MS Qstar XL (quadrupole time-of-flight (qQTOF)) and linear ion trap (LIT) LTQ XL identification. This protocol allows the unambiguous identification of the GABAA-receptor alpha-1 subunit protein with 100% sequence coverage, thus covering all four hydrophobic transmembrane domains. This protocol differs from other methods in the selection of enzymes, digestion conditions and use of the two mass spectrometry principles. The protocol takes approximately 10 d to complete and may represent a step forward in the complex analysis of other membrane or hydrophobic proteins.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nprot.2009.92

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kang, S.-U., Fuchs, K., Sieghart, W., Pollak, A., Csaszar, E., & Lubec, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Max Perutz Labs (AT)
Venue
Nature Protocols
Published
2009-07
Volume
4
Issue
7
Pages
1093-1102
ISSN
  • 1750-2799 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-2189
OpenAlex
W2064940913
Cited by
51
References
1
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Protocols (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Keywords
hydrophobic proteins, membrane proteins, transmembrane domain, in-gel digestion, trypsin, chymotrypsin, subtilisin, peptide sequence coverage, protein identification
MeSH terms
Animals, Gels, Membrane Proteins, Receptors, GABA-A, Mass Spectrometry, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Rats, Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions

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