Article

The correlation between cellular size and protein expression levels - Normalization for global protein profiling

School of Biotechnology, AlbaNova University Center, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Journal of Proteomics (Impact Factor: 3.93). 10/2008; 71(4):448-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2008.06.014
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT An automated image analysis system was used for protein quantification of 1862 human proteins in 47 cancer cell lines and 12 clinical cell samples using cell microarrays and immunohistochemistry. The analysis suggests that most proteins are expressed in a cell size dependent manner, and that normalization is required for comparative protein quantification in order to correct for the inherent bias of cell size and systematic ambiguities associated with immunohistochemistry. Two reference standards were evaluated, and normalized protein expression values were found to allow for protein profiling across a panel of morphologically diverse cells, revealing putative patterns of over- and underexpression. Using this approach, proteins with stable expression as well as cell-line specific expression were identified. The results demonstrate the value of large-scale, automated proteome analysis using immunohistochemistry, in revealing functional correlations and establishing methods to interpret and mine proteomic data.

0 Followers
 · 
88 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this review, we present an update on the progress of the Human Protein Atlas, with an emphasis on strategies for validating immunohistochemistry-based protein expression patterns and on the possibilities to extend the map of protein expression patterns for cancer research projects. The objectives underlying the Human Protein Atlas include (i) the generation of validated antibodies toward a major isoform of all proteins encoded by the human genome, (ii) creating an information database of protein expression patterns in normal human tissues, in cells, and in cancer, and (iii) utilizing generated antibodies and protein expression data as tools to identify clinically useful biomarkers. The success of such an effort is dependent on the validity of antibodies as specific binders of intended targets in applications used to map protein expression patterns. The development of strategies to support specific target binding is crucial and remains a challenge as a large fraction of proteins encoded by the human genome is poorly characterized, including the approximately one-third of all proteins lacking evidence of existence. Conceivable methods for validation include the use of paired antibodies, i.e. two independent antibodies targeting different and nonoverlapping epitopes on the same protein as well as comparative analysis of mRNA expression patterns with corresponding proteins.
    Proteomics 07/2012; 12(13):2067-77. DOI:10.1002/pmic.201100504 · 3.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Defining the protein profiles of tissues and organs is critical to understanding the unique characteristics of the various cell types in the human body. In this study, we report on an anatomically comprehensive analysis of 4842 protein profiles in 48 human tissues and 45 human cell lines. A detailed analysis of over 2 million manually annotated, high-resolution, immunohistochemistry-based images showed a high fraction (>65%) of expressed proteins in most cells and tissues, with very few proteins (<2%) detected in any single cell type. Similarly, confocal microscopy in three human cell lines detected expression of more than 70% of the analyzed proteins. Despite this ubiquitous expression, hierarchical clustering analysis, based on global protein expression patterns, shows that the analyzed cells can be still subdivided into groups according to the current concepts of histology and cellular differentiation. This study suggests that tissue specificity is achieved by precise regulation of protein levels in space and time, and that different tissues in the body acquire their unique characteristics by controlling not which proteins are expressed but how much of each is produced.
    Molecular Systems Biology 12/2009; 5:337. DOI:10.1038/msb.2009.93 · 14.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tissue-based diagnostics and research is incessantly evolving with the development of new molecular tools. It has long been realized that immunohistochemistry can add an important new level of information on top of morphology and that protein expression patterns in a cancer may yield crucial diagnostic and prognostic information. We have generated an immunohistochemistry-based map of protein expression profiles in normal tissues, cancer and cell lines. For each antibody, altogether 708 spots of tissues and cells are analysed and the resulting images and data are presented as freely available in the Human Protein Atlas (www.proteinatlas.org). The new version 4 of the atlas, including more than 5 million images of immunohistochemically stained tissues and cells, is based on 6122 antibodies, representing 5011 human proteins encoded by approximately 25% of the human genome. The gene-centric database includes a putative classification of proteins in various protein classes, both functional classes, such as kinases or transcription factors and project-related classes, such as candidate genes for cancer or cardiovascular diseases. For each of the internally generated antibodies, the exact antigen sequence is presented, together with a visualization of application-specific validation data, including a protein array assay, western blot analysis, immunohistochemistry and, in most cases, immunofluorescent-based confocal microscopy. The updated version also includes new search algorithms to allow complex queries regarding expression profiles, protein classes and chromosome location. Thus, the presented Human Protein Atlas provides a resource for pathology-based biomedical research, including protein science and biomarker discovery.
    The Journal of Pathology 12/2008; 216(4):387-93. DOI:10.1002/path.2440 · 7.33 Impact Factor