Premium
Plant proteome analysis: A 2006 update
Author(s) -
Jorrín Jesús V.,
Maldonado Ana M.,
Castillejo Ma Angeles
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
proteomics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.26
H-Index - 167
eISSN - 1615-9861
pISSN - 1615-9853
DOI - 10.1002/pmic.200700135
Subject(s) - proteome , computational biology , proteomics , biology , bioinformatics , genetics , gene
This 2006 ‘Plant Proteomics Update’ is a continuation of the two previously published in ‘Proteomics’ by 2004 (Canovas et al., Proteomics 2004, 4 , 285–298) and 2006 (Rossignol et al., Proteomics 2006, 6 , 5529–5548) and it aims to bring up‐to‐date the contribution of proteomics to plant biology on the basis of the original research papers published throughout 2006, with references to those appearing last year. According to the published papers and topics addressed, we can conclude that, as observed for the three previous years, there has been a quantitative, but not qualitative leap in plant proteomics. The full potential of proteomics is far from being exploited in plant biology research, especially if compared to other organisms, mainly yeast and humans, and a number of challenges, mainly technological, remain to be tackled. The original papers published last year numbered nearly 100 and deal with the proteome of at least 26 plant species, with a high percentage for Arabidopsis thaliana (28) and rice (11). Scientific objectives ranged from proteomic analysis of organs/tissues/cell suspensions (57) or subcellular fractions (29), to the study of plant development (12), the effect of hormones and signalling molecules (8) and response to symbionts (4) and stresses (27). A small number of contributions have covered PTMs (8) and protein interactions (4). 2‐DE (specifically IEF‐SDS‐PAGE) coupled to MS still constitutes the almost unique platform utilized in plant proteome analysis. The application of gel‐free protein separation methods and ‘second generation’ proteomic techniques such as multidimensional protein identification technology (MudPIT), and those for quantitative proteomics including DIGE, isotope‐coded affinity tags (ICAT), iTRAQ and stable isotope labelling by amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) still remains anecdotal. This review is divided into seven sections: Introduction, Methodology, Subcellular proteomes, Development, Responses to biotic and abiotic stresses, PTMs and Protein interactions. Section 8 summarizes the major pitfalls and challenges of plant proteomics.