title: Comparison of first dimension IPG and NEPHGE techniques in two-dimensional gel electrophoresis experiment with cytosolic unfolded protein response in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2DE) is one of the most popular methods in proteomics. Currently, most 2DE experiments are performed using immobilized pH gradient (IPG) in the first dimension; however, some laboratories still use carrier ampholytes-based isoelectric focusing technique. The aim of this study was to directly compare IPG-based and non-equilibrium pH gradient electrophoresis (NEPHGE)-based 2DE techniques by using the same samples and identical second dimension procedures. We have used commercially available Invitrogen ZOOM IPGRunner and WITAvision systems for IPG and NEPHGE, respectively. The effectiveness of IPG-based and NEPHGE-based 2DE methods was compared by analysing differential protein expression during cytosolic unfolded protein response (UPR-Cyto) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Protein loss during 2DE procedure was higher in IPG-based method, especially for basic (pI > 7) proteins. Overall reproducibility of spots was slightly better in NEPHGE-based method; however, there was a marked difference when evaluating basic and acidic protein spots. Using Coomassie staining, about half of detected basic protein spots were not reproducible by IPG-based 2DE, whereas NEPHGE-based method showed excellent reproducibility in the basic gel zone. The reproducibility of acidic proteins was similar in both methods. Absolute and relative volume variability of separate protein spots was comparable in both 2DE techniques. Regarding proteomic analysis of UPR-Cyto, the results exemplified parameters of general comparison of the methods. New highly basic protein Sis1p, overexpressed during UPR-Cyto stress, was identified by NEPHGE-based 2DE method, whereas IPG-based method showed unreliable results in the basic pI range and did not provide any new information on basic UPR-Cyto proteins. In the acidic range, the main UPR-Cyto proteins were detected and quantified by both methods. The drawback of NEPHGE-based 2DE method is its failure to detect some highly acidic proteins. The advantage of NEPHGE is higher protein capacity with good reproducibility and quality of spots at high protein load.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Comparison of broad range (pH3-10) gradient-based 2DE methods suggests that NEPHGE-based method is preferable over IPG (Invitrogen) 2DE method for the analysis of basic proteins. Nevertheless, the narrow range (pH4-7) IPG technique is a method of choice for the analysis of acidic proteins.
authors.affiliation: Department of Eukaryote Gene Engineering, Institute of Biotechnology, Vilnius University, V, Graiciuno 8, Vilnius LT-02241, Lithuania. rimantas.slibinskas@bti.vu.lt.
authors.forename: Rimantas
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Slibinskas
authors.forename: Raimundas
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Ražanskas
authors.forename: Rūta
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Zinkevičiūtė
authors.forename: Evaldas
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Čiplys
references.citation: Proteomics. 2006 Apr;6(7):2121-34
references.pmid: 16485259
references.citation: Proteomics. 2005 Jul;5(11):2739-47
references.pmid: 15966007
references.citation: Microb Cell Fact. 2011 May 19;10:37
references.pmid: 21595909
references.citation: Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Mar;19(3):1720-30
references.pmid: 10022859
references.citation: Proteomics. 2006 Sep;6(17):4688-703
references.pmid: 16933336
references.citation: Humangenetik. 1975;26(3):231-43
references.pmid: 1093965
references.citation: Mol Cell Proteomics. 2005 Jan;4(1):1-11
references.pmid: 15502163
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jan 11;108(2):680-5
references.pmid: 21187411
references.citation: Methods Mol Biol. 2012;893:37-46
references.pmid: 22665292
references.citation: Proteome Sci. 2012 Sep 06;10(1):54
references.pmid: 22954324
references.citation: J Proteome Res. 2006 Nov;5(11):2919-27
references.pmid: 17081043
references.citation: J Proteomics. 2010 Oct 10;73(11):2064-77
references.pmid: 20685252
references.citation: Electrophoresis. 1988 Sep;9(9):531-46
references.pmid: 3072185
references.citation: J Biochem Biophys Methods. 1982 Sep;6(4):317-39
references.pmid: 7142660
references.citation: J Biotechnol. 2004 Jan 22;107(2):115-24
references.pmid: 14711495
references.citation: J Biol Chem. 1975 May 25;250(10):4007-21
references.pmid: 236308
references.citation: Electrophoresis. 1998 May;19(6):1024-35
references.pmid: 9638949
references.citation: Cell. 1977 Dec;12(4):1133-41
references.pmid: 23215
references.citation: Electrophoresis. 1996 Nov;17(11):1683-99
references.pmid: 8982601
references.citation: Electrophoresis. 1995 Jun;16(6):1034-59
references.pmid: 7498127
references.citation: Proteome Sci. 2010 Apr 28;8:23
references.pmid: 20426826
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Aug 15;97(17):9390-5
references.pmid: 10920198
references.citation: J Med Virol. 2002 Jan;66(1):123-30
references.pmid: 11748668
references.citation: Electrophoresis. 2009 Jun;30 Suppl 1:S122-32
references.pmid: 19441019
references.citation: Anal Biochem. 1995 Jan 1;224(1):451-5
references.pmid: 7710111
references.citation: Yeast. 1997 Dec;13(16):1519-34
references.pmid: 9509572
references.citation: BMC Genomics. 2012 Jun 09;13:230
references.pmid: 22681880