10.12.2012 Views

Protein Protocols Protein Protocols

Protein Protocols Protein Protocols

Protein Protocols Protein Protocols

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

186 Ünlü and Minden<br />

utilized computational tools, applying statistical analyses to several experiments to<br />

distill the true differences away from those induced by inter-gel fluctuations. However,<br />

these efforts have been at best partially successful, since running different gels in order<br />

to compare different samples has been a requirement given that all conventional protein<br />

detection methods are nonspecific in nature. At the same time, the material and time<br />

investment required in a technique that is already considered to be difficult has<br />

increased.<br />

Difference gel electrophoresis (DIGE) was developed to overcome the irreproducibility<br />

problem in 2-DE methodology by labeling two samples with two different<br />

fluorescent dyes prior to running them on the same gel (6). The fluorescent dyes used in<br />

DIGE, Cy3 and Cy5 (Fig. 1), are cyanine based, molecular weight matched, amine<br />

reactive, and positively charged. These characteristics, coupled with substoichiometric<br />

labeling, result in no electrophoretic mobility shifts arising between the two differentially<br />

labeled samples when coelectrophoresed. Thus, in DIGE, every identical protein<br />

in one sample superimposes with its differentially labeled counterpart in the other<br />

sample, allowing for more reproducible and facile detection of differences. Furthermore,<br />

DIGE is a sensitive technique, capable of detecting a single protein between two<br />

otherwise identical samples at levels as low as 0.01% of total protein and having an<br />

overall detection sensitivity equal to that of silver staining.<br />

2. Materials<br />

All references to H2O should be read as double-distilled H2O unless stated otherwise.<br />

In recipes, the information given in each line corresponds to final concentration, the<br />

name of ingredient, and the amount used, in that order.<br />

2.1. Sample Solubilization and Labeling<br />

1. 40% Methylamine in water, urea, thiourea, dithiothreitol (DTT) and 3-[3-cholamidopropyl)<br />

dimethyl ammonio]-1-propanesulfonate (CHAPS) are available from Sigma-Aldrich (Milwaukee,<br />

WI). N-[2-hydroxyethyl] piperazine N'-2'-ethanesulfonic acid (HEPES) was from<br />

Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA).<br />

2. Lysis buffer:<br />

8 M Urea 24.0 g<br />

(Alternatively, 6 M urea and 2 M thiourea may be used. See Note 1)<br />

6 M Urea 18.0 g<br />

2 M Thiourea 7.6 g<br />

Make up to 40 mL with HPLC quality H2O and dissolve the urea.<br />

2% CHAPS (Sigma-Aldrich) 1.0 g<br />

10 mM DTT 500 µL of 1 M stock or 0.077 g of solid<br />

10 mM NaHEPES, pH 8.0 5.0 mL of 100 mM stock (Add last, see Notes 2 and 3)<br />

Make up to 50.0 mL with HPLC quality H2O and store at –80°C in 1- to 1.5-mL aliquots.<br />

3. Labeling solution: We typically label samples in lysis buffer with no further modification.<br />

Note that we do not add Pharmalytes to this solution (see Note 4).<br />

4. Quenching solution: 5 M methylamine in 100 mM NaHEPES, pH 8.0. Dissolve 2.38 g of<br />

HEPES in 38.8 mL of 40% methylamine aqueous solution. Slowly add approx 60 mL<br />

concentrated HCl with stirring. Cool the solution on ice and measure the pH as the HCl is<br />

added until the pH reaches 8.0.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!