Integrated Genomic and Proteomic Analyses of Gene Expression in Mammalian Cells Tian et. al....

Integrated Genomic and Proteomic Analyses of

Gene Expression in Mammalian Cells

Tian et. al.

Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 3:960-969, 2004

MEDG 505, 13/01/04, Anca Petrescu

Genomics vs Proteomics

Honore et. Al., BioEssays 26:901-15

Technologies

ICAT-MS


2D-DIGE

2 experiments

Steady state mRNA-protein levels 2 cell lines representing distinct hematopoietic stages

Stage-specific developmental markers

Dynamic state mRNA-protein levels Liver response to treatment with 3 drugs

Drug response genes

Steady-state experiment

Early myeloid differentiation process Stage-specific developmental markers

EML kit-ligand dependent multipotent progenitors

MPRO lineage-committed GM-CSF dependent

Oligo-arrays + ICAT-MS

Microarray data

1,199 mRNA’s differentially expressed

5% of Agilent 22,788 gene-array 23,574 60-mer probes

568

631 MPRO

EML

ICAT-MS data

672 unique proteins

2,919 cysteine-containing peptides 253 [1], 419 [>1]

425 have corresponding mRNA 157 [1], 268 [>1]


mRNA vs Protein 150 signature genes

29 - correlated

67 - mRNA

52 - protein

2 - anticorrelated

Correlated genes

GENE UPREGULATED mRNA PROTEIN

c-kit EML 9 7

c-kit ligand

EML - 5

RACK1 MPRO 2 -

[mitochondrial]

Anti-correlated genes

Atp5o: H+-ATP synthase O subunit

↑mRNA ↓protein translation-inhibitory protein binds to 3’-UTR of β-subunit mRNA

8 other mitochondrial genes

Commonly shared post-transcriptional regulatory mechanism

[RNA processing]

Anti-correlated genes

HNRNP AO

↓mRNA ↑protein 5/6 RNA processing genes 12 yeast RNA processing genes

Post-transcriptional regulatory mechanisms likely for this class of genes

Correlation significance

Observed correlation: r = 0.64

Null hypothesis: r = 0 Rejection → not related by chance Significance: p~10-20 (Fisher’s z-transform)

Null hypothesis: r = 1 Rejection → rule out noise

Correlation significance Null hypothesis: perfect correlation

Computer-simulate noise r=1 data mRNA/protein error models 1,000 Montecarlo runs

Simulated r=0.9 vs observed r=0.64 biological significance

Dynamic-state experiment

dynamic process of drug response

PPARα and –γ agonists WY-14653, TZD, BRL-49653 C57BL/6J mice: 1,2,3,7 daily doses [n=3]

liver mRNA vs. protein levels Oligoarrays vs 2D-DIGE Experimental vs control (vehicle)

2D-DIGE

calculate p-value of variance/spot/treatments

top 70 variant spotsQuality/brightness

30 candidate spots → MSDiscard + consolidate spots

12 candidate genes (r=0.54) 144 data points: 12 genes x 3 drugs x 4 time points


mRNA vs Protein

8 genes: r>0.65 (p<0.01) 1 gene: r=-0.70

mRNA vs Protein

Signature mRNA’s/proteins (same proportion)Abs(logRatio) > 0.2, p < 0.05

mRNA vs Protein

Pearson correlation ~0.7 Similar info of drug treatments with both data

Axis: expression ratios

Genomics vs ProteomicsHonore et. Al., BioEssays 26:901-15

40%

Protein expression more variable?

Why anti-correlated? Does this make evolutionary sense?What kinds of genes might we expect this for?

Integrated Genomic and Proteomic Analyses of Gene Expression in Mammalian Cells Tian et. al....

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Genomic and Proteomic Analyses of Gene Expression in Mammalian Cells Tian et. al....