MCP AbD Serotec
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2007.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M700083-MCP200v1
6/9/1574    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Glossary
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butt, R. H.
Right arrow Articles by Coorssen, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Butt, R. H.
Right arrow Articles by Coorssen, J. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Submitted on February 26, 2007
Accepted on May 17, 2007

Enabling coupled quantitative genomic and proteomic analyses from rat spinal cord samples

R. Hussain Butt, Pfeifer Tom A, Allen Delaney, Thomas A. Grigliatti, Wolfram G. Tetslaff, and Jens R. Coorssen

Physiology & Biophysics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N1

Corresponding Author: jcoorsse{at}ucalgary.ca

Translational research is progressing toward combined genomic and proteomic analyses of small and precious samples. In our analyses of spinal cord material, we systematically evaluated disruption and extraction techniques to determine an optimum process for the coupled analysis of RNA and protein from a single 5mm segment of tissue. Analyses of these distinct molecular species were performed using micro arrays and high-resolution 2D gels, respectively. Comparison of standard homogenization with automated frozen disruption (AFD) identified negligible differences in the relative abundance of genes (44), with all genes being identified by either process. Analysis on either the Affymetrix or ABI Gene array platforms provided good correlations between the extraction techniques. In contrast, the AFD technique enabled identification of more unique proteins from spinal cord tissue than did standard homogenization. Furthermore, use of an optimized CHAPS/urea extraction provided better protein recovery, as shown by quantitative 2D gel analyses, than did solvent precipitation during TRIzol–based RNA extraction. Thus, AFD of tissue samples followed by protein and RNA isolation from separate aliquots of the frozen powdered sample is the most effective route to ensure full, quantitative analyses of both molecular entities.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 All ASBMB Journals   Journal of Biological Chemistry 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.