Advertisement

Myogenesis pp 301-317 | Cite as

Myoblast Phosphoproteomics as a Tool to Investigate Global Signaling Events During Myogenesis

  • Fiona K. Jones
  • Gemma E. Hardman
  • Samantha Ferries
  • Claire E. Eyers
  • Addolorata Pisconti
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1889)

Abstract

Protein phosphorylation is a universal covalent chemical modification of amino acids involved in a large number of biological processes including cell signaling, metabolism, proliferation, differentiation, survival/death, ageing, and many more. Regulation of protein phosphorylation is essential in myogenesis and indeed, when the enzymatic activity of protein kinases is distrupted in myoblasts, myogenesis is affected. In this chapter we describe a method to profile the phosphoproteome of myoblasts using mass spectrometry. Phosphate groups are labile and easily lost during the processing of samples for mass spectrometry. Thus, effective methods to enrich for phosphopeptides from protein extracts have been developed. Here, we discuss and present in detail two such methods that we routinely employ. These methods are based on a sample enrichment step performed on titanium dioxide matrices followed by label-free tandem mass spectrometry and semi-quantitation.

Key words

Myogenesis Phosphoproteomics Myoblasts Muscle stem cells Label-free proteomics Phosphorylation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a PhD studentship to FKJ, GEH and SF from the Biological and Biotechnology Research Council, UK and by a Wellcome Trust ISSF and a Marie Curie IEF to AP.

References

  1. 1.
    Hardman G, Perkins S, Ruan Z, Kannan N, Brownridge P, Byrne DP, Eyers PA, Jones AR, Eyers CE (2017) Extensive non-canonical phosphorylation in human cells revealed using strong-anion exchange-mediated phosphoproteomics. bioRxivGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen P (2002) The origins of protein phosphorylation. Nat Cell Biol 4(5):E127–E130.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb0502-e127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunter T (2012) Why nature chose phosphate to modify proteins. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 367(1602):2513–2516.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mashinchian O, Pisconti A, Le Moal E, Bentzinger CF (2018) The muscle stem cell niche in health and disease. Curr Top Dev Biol 126:23–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ctdb.2017.08.003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olguin HC, Pisconti A (2012) Marking the tempo for myogenesis: Pax7 and the regulation of muscle stem cell fate decisions. J Cell Mol Med 16(5):1013–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2011.01348.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pisconti A, Bernet JD, Olwin BB (2012) Syndecans in skeletal muscle development, regeneration and homeostasis. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 2(1):1–9PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arecco N, Clarke CJ, Jones FK, Simpson DM, Mason D, Beynon RJ, Pisconti A (2016) Elastase levels and activity are increased in dystrophic muscle and impair myoblast cell survival, proliferation and differentiation. Sci Rep 6:24708.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24708CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghadiali RS, Guimond SE, Turnbull JE, Pisconti A (2017) Dynamic changes in heparan sulfate during muscle differentiation and ageing regulate myoblast cell fate and FGF2 signalling. Matrix Biol 59:54–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matbio.2016.07.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Segales J, Perdiguero E, Munoz-Canoves P (2016) Regulation of muscle stem cell functions: a focus on the p38 MAPK signaling pathway. Front Cell Dev Biol 4:91.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2016.00091CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huttlin EL, Jedrychowski MP, Elias JE, Goswami T, Rad R, Beausoleil SA, Villen J, Haas W, Sowa ME, Gygi SP (2010) A tissue-specific atlas of mouse protein phosphorylation and expression. Cell 143(7):1174–1189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.12.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou H, Di Palma S, Preisinger C, Peng M, Polat AN, Heck AJ, Mohammed S (2013) Toward a comprehensive characterization of a human cancer cell phosphoproteome. J Proteome Res 12(1):260–271.  https://doi.org/10.1021/pr300630kCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson H, Eyers CE (2010) Analysis of post-translational modifications by LC-MS/MS. In: Cutillas PR, Timms JF (eds) LC-MS/MS in proteomics: methods and applications. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 93–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-780-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hogrebe A, von Stechow L, Bekker-Jensen DB, Weinert BT, Kelstrup CD, Olsen JV (2018) Benchmarking common quantification strategies for large-scale phosphoproteomics. Nat Commun 9(1):1045.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03309-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawkridge AM (2014) Chapter 1 practical considerations and current limitations in quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics. In: Quantitative proteomics. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1039/9781782626985-00001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmutz C, Ahrne E, Kasper CA, Tschon T, Sorg I, Dreier RF, Schmidt A, Arrieumerlou C (2013) Systems-level overview of host protein phosphorylation during Shigella flexneri infection revealed by phosphoproteomics. Mol Cell Proteomics 12(10):2952–2968.  https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M113.029918CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kauko O, Laajala TD, Jumppanen M, Hintsanen P, Suni V, Haapaniemi P, Corthals G, Aittokallio T, Westermarck J, Imanishi SY (2015) Label-free quantitative phosphoproteomics with novel pairwise abundance normalization reveals synergistic RAS and CIP2A signaling. Sci Rep 5:13099.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13099CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Humphrey SJ, Yang G, Yang P, Fazakerley DJ, Stockli J, Yang JY, James DE (2013) Dynamic adipocyte phosphoproteome reveals that Akt directly regulates mTORC2. Cell Metab 17(6):1009–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2013.04.010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Casado P, Alcolea MP, Iorio F, Rodriguez-Prados JC, Vanhaesebroeck B, Saez-Rodriguez J, Joel S, Cutillas PR (2013) Phosphoproteomics data classify hematological cancer cell lines according to tumor type and sensitivity to kinase inhibitors. Genome Biol 14(4):R37.  https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-4-r37CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sano A, Nakamura H (2004) Titania as a chemo-affinity support for the column-switching HPLC analysis of phosphopeptides: application to the characterization of phosphorylation sites in proteins by combination with protease digestion and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Anal Sci 20(5):861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinkse MW, Uitto PM, Hilhorst MJ, Ooms B, Heck AJ (2004) Selective isolation at the femtomole level of phosphopeptides from proteolytic digests using 2D-NanoLC-ESI-MS/MS and titanium oxide precolumns. Anal Chem 76(14):3935–3943.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac0498617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thingholm TE, Jorgensen TJ, Jensen ON, Larsen MR (2006) Highly selective enrichment of phosphorylated peptides using titanium dioxide. Nat Protoc 1(4):1929–1935.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sugiyama N, Masuda T, Shinoda K, Nakamura A, Tomita M, Ishihama Y (2007) Phosphopeptide enrichment by aliphatic hydroxy acid-modified metal oxide chromatography for nano-LC-MS/MS in proteomics applications. Mol Cell Proteomics 6(6):1103–1109.  https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.T600060-MCP200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferries S, Perkins S, Brownridge PJ, Campbell A, Eyers PA, Jones AR, Eyers CE (2017) Evaluation of parameters for confident phosphorylation site localization using an orbitrap fusion tribrid mass spectrometer. J Proteome Res 16(9):3448–3459.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beausoleil SA, Villen J, Gerber SA, Rush J, Gygi SP (2006) A probability-based approach for high-throughput protein phosphorylation analysis and site localization. Nat Biotechnol 24(10):1285–1292.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paulo JA, McAllister FE, Everley RA, Beausoleil SA, Banks AS, Gygi SP (2015) Effects of MEK inhibitors GSK1120212 and PD0325901 in vivo using 10-plex quantitative proteomics and phosphoproteomics. Proteomics 15(2–3):462–473.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201400154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Flamini V, Ghadiali RS, Antczak P, Rothwell A, Turnbull JE, Pisconti A (2018) The satellite cell niche regulates the balance between myoblast differentiation and self-renewal via p53. Stem Cell Rep 10(3):970–983.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fiona K. Jones
    • 1
  • Gemma E. Hardman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Samantha Ferries
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claire E. Eyers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Addolorata Pisconti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry, Institute of Integrative BiologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Centre for Proteome Research, Institute of Integrative BiologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations