Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative analysis of differentially secreted proteins in serum-free and serum-containing media by using BONCAT and pulsed SILAC
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative analysis of differentially secreted proteins in serum-free and serum-containing media by using BONCAT and pulsed SILAC
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative analysis of differentially secreted proteins in serum-free and serum-containing media by using BONCAT and pulsed SILAC
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative analysis of differentially secreted proteins in serum-free and serum-containing media by using BONCAT and pulsed SILAC
2019
Overview
Despite the increased interest in secretomes associated with paracrine/autocrine mechanisms, the majority of mass spectrometric cell secretome studies have been performed using serum-free medium (SFM). On the other hand, serum-containing medium (SCM) is not recommended very much because the secretome obtained with SCM is easily contaminated with fetal bovine serum (FBS) proteins. In this study, through the combination of bioorthogonal non-canonical amino acid tagging (BONCAT) and pulsed-SILAC (pSILAC), we analyzed differentially secreted proteins between SFM and SCM in a cancer-derived human cell, U87MG, and a mesenchymal stem cell derived from human Wharton’s jelly (hWJ-MSCs). In most cases, the bioinformatic tools predicted a protein to be truly secretory when the secretion level of the protein was more in SCM than in SFM. In the case of hWJ-MSCs, the amount of proteins secreted in SCM for 24 hours was larger than that of SFM (log
2
fold change = 0.96), even considering different cell proliferation rates. hWJ-MSCs proteins secreted more in SCM included several positive markers of MSC paracrine factors implicated in angiogenesis, neurogenesis and osteogenesis, and upstream regulators of cell proliferation. Our study suggests the analysis of the secretome should be processed in SCM that promotes cell proliferation and secretion.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group
Subject
