Plant Molecular Biology

, Volume 48, Issue 1–2, pp 143–154 | Cite as

Proteomics and a future generation of plant molecular biologists

  • Justin K.M. Roberts


Proteomic methods are required for the study of many different aspects of plant function. Important issues in proteomics include the molecular complexity of proteins, given that there are hundreds of thousands of chemically and physically distinct proteins in plants, and the context of protein functions with respect to both genomes and the environment. Available genomic and gene sequences greatly simplify the identification of proteins using improved techniques of mass spectrometry. This improved capability has led to much discussion on proteomes, and some experimentation using proteomic methodologies aimed at modest numbers of proteins. The scale of proteomics is open, for the number of proteins and genes considered at any one time is as dependent on the nature of the scientific question posed as on technical resources and capabilities. We know just enough about plant proteomes to imagine the breathtaking scope of our ignorance. There are tremendous opportunities for new molecular biologists to define the nature of the protein machines that transduce genetic and environmental information, and transform simple energy and matter, to give plants.

mass spectrometry proteomics functional genomics gene expression post-translational modification protein identification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aebersold, R. and Patterson S.D. 1998. Current problems and technical solutions in protein biochemistry. In: R.H. Angeletti (Ed.) Proteins: Analysis and Designs, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 3–120.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, B. 1998. The cell as a collection of protein machines: preparing the next generation of molecular biologists. Cell 92: 291–294.Google Scholar
  3. Li, J. and Assmann, S.M. 2000. Mass spectrometry. An essential tool in proteome analysis. Plant Physiol. 123: 807–809.Google Scholar
  4. Beraud-Dufour, S. and Balch, W.E. 2001. Structural and functional organization of ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF) proteins. Meth. Enzymol. 329: 245–247.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, S.L. 2001. The histone modification circus. Science 292: 64–65.Google Scholar
  6. Biemann, K. 1990. Nomenclature for peptide fragment ions (positive ions). Meth. Enzymol. 193: 886–887.Google Scholar
  7. Bogdanove, A.J. and Martin, G.B. 2000. AvrPto-dependent Pto-interacting proteins and AvrPto-interacting proteins in tomato. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 8836–8840.Google Scholar
  8. Breen, E.J., Hopwood, F.G., Williams, K.L. and Wilkins, M.R. 2000. Automatic Poisson peak harvesting for high throughput protein identification. Electrophoresis 21: 2243–2251.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, W.W.P., Huang, L., Shen, M., Webster, C., Burlingame, A.L. and Roberts, J.K.M. 2000. Patterns of protein synthesis and tolerance of anoxia in root tips of maize seedlings acclimated to a low-oxygen environment, and identification of proteins by mass spectrometry. Plant Physiol. 122: 295–318.Google Scholar
  10. Clauser, K.R., Baker, P. and Burlingame, A.L. 1999. Role of accurate mass measurement (± 10 ppm) in protein identification strategies employing MS or MS/MS and database searching. Anal. Chem. 71: 2871–2882.Google Scholar
  11. Corradini, D., Huber, C.G., Timperio, A.M. and Zolla, L. 2000. Resolution and identification of the protein components of the photosystem II antenna system of higher plants by reversed-phase liquid chromatography with electrospray-mass spectrometric detection. J. Chromatogr. A 886: 111–121.Google Scholar
  12. Creighton, T.E. 1993. Proteins: Structures and Molecular Properties, 2nd ed. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Crowell, D.N. 2000. Functional implications of protein isoprenylation in plants. Prog. Lipid Res. 39: 393–408Google Scholar
  14. Ferro, M., Seigneurin-Berny, D., Rolland, N., Chapel, A., Salvi, D., Garin, J. and Joyard, J. 2000. Organic solvent extraction as a versatile procedure to identify hydrophobic chloroplast membrane proteins. Electrophoresis 21: 3517–3526.Google Scholar
  15. Fiehn, O., Kopka, J., Dormann, P., Altmann, T., Trethewey, R.N. and Willmitzer, L. 2000. Metabolite profiling for plant functional genomics. Nature Biotechnol. 18: 1157–1161.Google Scholar
  16. Fotiadis, D., Jeno, P., Mini, T., Wirtz, S., Muller, S.A., Fraysse, L., Kjellbom, P. and Engel, A. 2001. Structural characterization of two aquaporins isolated from native spinach leaf plasma membranes. J. Biol. Chem. 276: 1707–1714.Google Scholar
  17. Graveley, B.R. 2001. Alternative splicing: increasing diversity in the proteomic world. Trends Genet. 17: 100–107.Google Scholar
  18. Gygi, S.P., Rist, B., Gerber, S.A., Turecek, F., Gelb, M.H. and Aebersold, R. 1999a. Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags. Nature Biotechnol. 17: 994–999.Google Scholar
  19. Gygi, S.P., Rochon, Y., Franza, B.R. and Aebersold, R. 1999b. Correlation between protein and mRNA abundance in yeast. Mol. Cell Biol. 19: 1720–1730.Google Scholar
  20. Gygi, S.P., Rist, B. and Aebersold, R. 2000. Measuring gene expression by quantitative proteome analysis. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11: 396–401.Google Scholar
  21. Jung, E., Veuthey, A.L., Gasteiger, E. and Bairoch, A. 2001. Annotation of glycoproteins in the SWISS-PROT database. Electrophoresis 22: 262–268.Google Scholar
  22. Kieselbach, T., Bystedt, M., Hynds, P., Robinson, C. and Schroder, W.P. 2000. A peroxidase homologue and novel plastocyanin located by proteomics to the Arabidopsis chloroplast thylakoid lumen. FEBS Lett. 480: 271–276.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, C.Y., Takahashi, K., Nguyen, T.B., Roberts, J.K.M. and Webster, C. 1999. Identification of a nucleic acid binding domain in eukaryotic initiation factor eIFiso4G from wheat. J. Biol. Chem. 274: 10603–10608.Google Scholar
  24. Lapko, V.N., Jiang, X.Y., Smith, D.L. and Song, P.S. 1999. Mass spectrometric characterization of oat phytochrome A: isoforms and posttranslational modifications. Protein Sci. 8: 1032–1044.Google Scholar
  25. le Coutre, J., Whitelegge, J.P., Gross, A., Turk, E., Wright, E.M., Kaback, H.R. and Faull, K.F. 2000. Proteomics on full-length membrane proteins using mass spectrometry. Biochemistry 39: 4237–4242.Google Scholar
  26. Li, J., Wang, X.Q., Watson, M.B. and Assmann, S.M. 2000. Regulation of abscisic acid-induced stomatal closure and anion channels by guard cell AAPK kinase. Science 287: 300–303.Google Scholar
  27. Link, A.J., Eng, J., Schieltz, D.M., Carmack, E., Mize, G.J., Morris, D.R., Garvik, B.M. and Yates, J.R. 1999. Direct analysis of protein complexes using mass spectrometry. Nature Biotechnol. 17: 676–682.Google Scholar
  28. Lusser, A., Kolle, D. and Loidl, P. 2001. Histone acetylation: lessons from the plant kingdom. Trends Plant Sci. 6: 59–65.Google Scholar
  29. Mahner, M. and Kary, M. 1997. What exactly are genomes, genotypes and phenotypes? And what about phenomes? J. Theor. Biol. 186: 55–63.Google Scholar
  30. Mann, M. and Pandey, A. 2001. Use of mass spectrometry-derived data to annotate nucleotide and protein sequence databases. Trends Biochem. Sci. 26: 54–61.Google Scholar
  31. Marechal, E., Hiratsuka, K., Delgado, J., Nairn, A., Qin, J., Chait, B.T. and Chua, N.H. 1999. Modulation of GT-1 DNA-binding activity by calcium-dependent phosphorylation. Plant Mol. Biol. 40: 373–386.Google Scholar
  32. Marx, J. 2001. New clue to how the cell controls its proteins. Science 292: 838–839.Google Scholar
  33. Mattei, B., Bernalda, M.S., Federici, L., Roepstorff, P., Cervone, F. and Boffi, A. 2001. Secondary structure and posttranslational modifications of the leucine-rich repeat protein PGIP (polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein) from Phaseolus vulgaris. Biochemistry 40: 569–576.Google Scholar
  34. McLafferty, F.W. and Turecek, F. 1993. Interpretation of Mass Spectra, 4th ed. University Science Books, Sausalito.Google Scholar
  35. McCloskey, J.A. (Ed.) 1990. Methods in Enzymology, vol. 193, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  36. Meszaros, T., Miskolczi, P., Ayaydin, F., Pettko-Szandtner, A., Peres, A., Magyar, Z., Horvath, G.V., Bako, L., Feher, A. and Dudits, D. 2000. Multiple cyclin-dependent kinase complexes and phosphatases control G2/M progression in alfalfa cells. Plant Mol. Biol. 43: 595–605.Google Scholar
  37. Nelson, D.L. and Cox, M.M. 2000. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 3rd ed. Worth, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Niessen, W.M. 1998. Advances in instrumentation in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and related liquid-introduction techniques. J. Chromatogr. A. 794: 407–435.Google Scholar
  39. Oda, Y., Huang, K., Cross, F.R., Cowburn, D. and Chait, B.T. 1999. Accurate quantitation of protein expression and site-specific phosphorylation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 6591–6596.Google Scholar
  40. Oda, Y., Nagasu, T. and Chait, B.T. 2001. Enrichment analysis of phosphorylated proteins as a tool for probing the phosphoproteome. Nature Biotechnol. 19: 379–382.Google Scholar
  41. Oh, M.H., Ray, W.K., Huber, S.C., Asara, J.M., Gage, D.A. and Clouse, S.D. 2000. Recombinant brassinosteroid insensitive 1 receptor-like kinase autophosphorylates on serine and threonine residues and phosphorylates a conserved peptide motif in vitro. Plant Physiol. 124: 751–766.Google Scholar
  42. Palsson, B. 2000. The challenges of in silico biology. Nature Biotechnol. 18: 1147–1150.Google Scholar
  43. Patton, W.F. 2000. A thousand points of light: the application of fluorescence detection technologies to two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and proteomics. Electrophoresis 21: 1123–1144.Google Scholar
  44. Peltier, J.B., Friso, G., Kalume, D.E., Roepstorff, P., Nilsson, F., Adamska, I. and van Wijk, K.J. 2000. Proteomics of the chloroplast: systematic identification and targeting analysis of lumenal and peripheral thylakoid proteins. Plant Cell 12: 319–341.Google Scholar
  45. Plomion, C., Pionneau, C., Brach, J., Costa, P. and Bailleres, H. 2000. Compression wood-responsive proteins in developing xylem of maritime pine (Pinus pinasterait). Plant Physiol. 123: 959–969.Google Scholar
  46. Prime, T.A., Sherrier, D.J., Mahon, P., Packman, L.C. and Dupree, P. 2000. A proteomic analysis of organelles from Arabidopsis thaliana. Electrophoresis 21: 3488–3499.Google Scholar
  47. Quail, P.H. 2000. Phytochrome-interacting factors. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 11: 457–466.Google Scholar
  48. Roessner, U., Luedemann, A., Brust, D., Fiehn, O., Linke, T., Willmitzer, L. and Fernie, A. 2001. Metabolic profiling allows comprehensive phenotyping of genetically or environmentally modified plant systems. Plant Cell 13: 11–29.Google Scholar
  49. Rossignol, M. 2001. Analysis of the plant proteome. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 12: 131–134.Google Scholar
  50. Santoni, V., Kieffer, S., Desclaux, D., Masson, F. and Rabilloud, T. 2000. Membrane proteomics: use of additive main effects with multiplicative interaction model to classify plasma membrane proteins according to their solubility and electrophoretic properties. Electrophoresis 21: 3329–3344.Google Scholar
  51. Scopes, R.K. 1994. Protein Purification: Principles and Practice, 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Service, R.F. 2000. Protein arrays step out of DNA's shadow. Science 289: 1673.Google Scholar
  53. Sessa, R.A., Bennett, M.H., Lewis, M.J., Mansfield, J.W. and Beale, M.H. 2000. Metabolite profiling of sesquiterpene lactones from Lactuca species. Major latex components are novel oxalate and sulfate conjugates of lactucin and its derivatives. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 26877–26884.Google Scholar
  54. Stent, G. S. 1978. Paradoxes of Progress. Freeman, San Francisco, pp. 176–178.Google Scholar
  55. Stumpf, P.K. and Conn, E.E. (Eds.). 1980-1989. The Biochemistry of Plants, vol. 1-15. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  56. Turk, E., Kim, O., le Coutre, J., Whitelegge, J.P., Eskandari, S., Lam, J.T., Kreman, M., Zampighi, G., Faull, K.F. and Wright, E.M. 2000. Molecular characterization of Vibrio parahaemolyticus vSGLT: a model for sodium-coupled sugar cotransporters. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 25711–25716.Google Scholar
  57. van Wijk, K.J. 2000. Proteomics of the chloroplast: experimentation and prediction. Trends Plant Sci. 5: 420–425.Google Scholar
  58. van Wijk, K.J. 2001. Challenges and prospects of plant proteomics. Plant Physiol. 126: 501–508.Google Scholar
  59. Vener, A.V., Harms, A., Sussman, M. and Vierstra, R. 2001. Mass spectrometric resolution of reversible protein phosphorylation in photosynthetic membranes of Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Biol. Chem. 276: 6959–6966.Google Scholar
  60. Verma, R., Chen, S., Feldman, R., Schieltz, D., Yates, J.R., Dohmen, J. and Deshaies, R.J. 2000. Proteasomal proteomics: identification of nucleotide-sensitive proteasome-interacting proteins by mass spectrometric analysis of affinity-purified proteasomes. Mol. Biol. Cell 11: 3425–3439.Google Scholar
  61. Washburn, M.P., Wolters, D. and Yates, J.R. 2001. Large-scale analysis of the yeast proteome by multidimensional protein identification technology. Nature Biotechnol. 19: 242–247.Google Scholar
  62. Whitelegge, J.P., Gundersen, C.B. and Faull, K.F. 1998. Electrospray-ionization mass spectrometry of intact intrinsic membrane proteins. Protein Sci. 7: 1423–1430.Google Scholar
  63. Wilm, M. 2000. Mass spectrometric analysis of proteins. Adv. Protein Chem. 54: 1–30.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, E.M. 2000. Molecular characterization of Vibrio parahaemolyticus vSGLT: amodel for sodium-coupled sugar cotransporters. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 25711–25716.Google Scholar
  65. Yaffe, M.B. and Smerdon, S.J. 2001. Phosphoserine/threonine binding domains. You can't pSERious? Structure 9: R33–R38.Google Scholar
  66. Yanofsky, C., Carlton, B.C., Guest, J.R., Helinski, D.R. and Henning, O. 1963. On the co-linearity of gene structure and protein structure. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 51: 266–272.Google Scholar
  67. Zhou, H., Watts, J.D. and Aebersold, R. 2001. A systematic approach to the analysis of protein phosphorylation. Nature Biotechnol. 19: 375–378.Google Scholar
  68. Zolla, L. and Timperio, A.M. 2000. High performance liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry for the simultaneous resolution and identification of intrinsic thylakoid membrane proteins. Proteins 41: 398–406.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin K.M. Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations