↓ Skip to main content

Plant Phosphoproteomics

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Plant Phosphoproteomics'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 The Plant Kinome
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Phosphatases in plants.
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Phosphoproteomics in cereals.
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Screening of Kinase Substrates Using Kinase Knockout Mutants
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Phosphopeptide Profiling of Receptor Kinase Mutants
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Combining Metabolic (15)N Labeling with Improved Tandem MOAC for Enhanced Probing of the Phosphoproteome.
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Kinase activity and specificity assay using synthetic peptides.
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Absolute quantitation of protein posttranslational modification isoform.
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Phosphorylation Stoichiometry Determination in Plant Photosynthetic Membranes
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Phosphopeptide immuno-affinity enrichment to enhance detection of tyrosine phosphorylation in plants.
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 The Peptide Microarray ChloroPhos1.0: A Screening Tool for the Identification of Arabidopsis thaliana Chloroplast Protein Kinase Substrates
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Plant Protein Kinase Substrates Identification Using Protein Microarrays
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Targeted Analysis of Protein Phosphorylation by 2D Electrophoresis.
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Computational phosphorylation network reconstruction: methods and resources.
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Computational Identification of Protein Kinases and Kinase-Specific Substrates in Plants
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Databases for plant phosphoproteomics.
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Phosphorylation Site Prediction in Plants
Attention for Chapter 6: Combining Metabolic (15)N Labeling with Improved Tandem MOAC for Enhanced Probing of the Phosphoproteome.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Combining Metabolic (15)N Labeling with Improved Tandem MOAC for Enhanced Probing of the Phosphoproteome.
Chapter number 6
Book title
Plant Phosphoproteomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2648-0_6
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-2647-3, 978-1-4939-2648-0
Authors

Thomas, Martin, Huck, Nicola, Hoehenwarter, Wolfgang, Conrath, Uwe, Beckers, Gerold J M, Martin Thomas, Nicola Huck, Wolfgang Hoehenwarter, Uwe Conrath, Gerold J. M. Beckers, Beckers, Gerold J. M.

Abstract

In eukaryotic cells many diverse cellular functions are regulated by reversible protein phosphorylation. In recent years, phosphoproteomics has become a powerful tool for studying protein phosphorylation because it enables unbiased localization, and site-specific quantification of in vivo phosphorylation of hundreds of proteins in a single experiment. A common strategy for identifying phosphoproteins and their phosphorylation sites from complex biological samples is the enrichment of phosphopeptides from digested cellular lysates followed by mass spectrometry. However, despite high sensitivity of modern mass spectrometers the large dynamic range of protein abundance and the transient nature of protein phosphorylation remained major pitfalls in MS-based phosphoproteomics. This is particularly true for plants in which the presence of secondary metabolites and endogenous compounds, the overabundance of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase and other components of the photosynthetic apparatus, and the concurrent difficulties in protein extraction necessitate two-step phosphoprotein/phosphopeptide enrichment strategies (Nakagami et al., Plant Cell Physiol 53:118-124, 2012).Approaches for label-free peptide quantification are advantageous due to their low cost and experimental simplicity, but they lack precision. These drawbacks can be overcome by metabolic labeling of whole plants with heavy nitrogen ((15)N) which allows combining two samples very early in the phosphoprotein enrichment workflow. This avoids sample-to-sample variation introduced by the analytical procedures and it results in robust relative quantification values that need no further standardization. The integration of (15)N metabolic labeling into tandem metal-oxide affinity chromatography (MOAC) (Hoehenwarter et al., Mol Cell Proteomics 12:369-380, 2013) presents an improved and highly selective approach for the identification and accurate site-specific quantification of low-abundance phosphoproteins that is based on the successive enrichment of light and heavy nitrogen-labeled phosphoproteins and peptides. This improved strategy combines metabolic labeling of whole plants with the stable heavy nitrogen isotope ((15)N), protein extraction under denaturing conditions, phosphoprotein enrichment using Al(OH)3-based MOAC, and tryptic digest of enriched phosphoproteins followed by TiO2-based MOAC of phosphopeptides and quantitative phosphopeptide measurement by liquid chromatography (LC) and high-resolution accurate mass (HR/AM) mass spectrometry (MS). Thus, tandem MOAC effectively targets the phosphate moiety of phosphoproteins and phosphopeptides and allows probing of the phosphoproteome to unprecedented depth, while (15)N metabolic labeling enables accurate relative quantification of measured peptides and direct comparison between samples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 44%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Unspecified 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 2 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 22%
Unspecified 1 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,420,033
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,915
of 13,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,851
of 353,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#481
of 997 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,121 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 997 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.