Evaluation and comparison of four protein extraction protocols for mono- and two-dimensional electrophoresis in Mytilus galloprovincialis

Submitted: 9 July 2014
Accepted: 13 January 2015
Published: 17 September 2015
Abstract Views: 1658
PDF: 1035
HTML: 345
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

In this study, four protein extraction protocols from Mytilus galloprovincialis were evaluated with the aim to identify the most practical, efficient and reproducible method. Four extraction protocols frequently used for mussels and organic matrices were selected and compared. The methods were based on the use of: i) TRIzol reagent; ii) Lysis buffer; iii) phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride; iv) trichloroacetic acid-acetone. Protein concentration was measured by the Bradford method. Three specimens of mussels were studied and the analysis was conducted in triplicate for each of the four protocols. Results indicated that the four methods could extract significantly different protein profiles. The highest number of protein spots resolved in 2DE gels and the best reproducibility was obtained using trichloroacetic acid-acetone protocol. Results afforded the selection of a suitable extraction protocol to be used for ecotoxicoproteomics studies from mussels and for other proteomic studies conducted by particularly complex tissues such as Mytilus galloprovincialis.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

1.
Ceruso M, Chirollo C, Boccia F, Smaldone G, Marrone R, Pepe T. Evaluation and comparison of four protein extraction protocols for mono- and two-dimensional electrophoresis in Mytilus galloprovincialis. Ital J Food Safety [Internet]. 2015 Sep. 17 [cited 2024 Jul. 25];4(3). Available from: https://www.pagepressjournals.org/ijfs/article/view/ijfs.2015.4534