Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 411, Issue 2, pp 403–411 | Cite as

Investigating the proteomic expression profile of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) leaves during four growth stages using the iTRAQ method

  • Min Chen
  • Guoquan Yan
  • Xuantang Wang
  • Zhi Huang
  • Xi Shao
  • Da Wu
  • Xiangmin ZhangEmail author
  • Baizhan LiuEmail author
Research Paper


Despite the importance of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) in agriculture and model organism investigations, the proteomic changes that occur in the tobacco leaf as it matures remain to be explored. In this study, an isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ) strategy was applied to investigate the proteomic profiles of K326 and Honghua Dajinyuan (HD) tobacco leaves at four growth stages. The proteomic profile varied with growth stage in both K326 and HD. Gene ontology (GO) classification was used to identify the biological processes that showed the greatest changes in protein expression between growth stages of HD and K326. Moreover, the number of differentially expressed proteins was greater in HD than in K326, especially during the rosette growth stage and the fast-growing stage. The galactose metabolism and glycosphingolipid biosynthesis-globo series pathways appeared only during the rosette growth stage of HD. It therefore appears that these pathways may be correlated with tobacco mosaic disease. The identification of these pathways should prove useful in investigations of the pathogenesis of tobacco mosaic virus.

Graphical abstract


Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco iTRAQ Proteomics 



The authors are very grateful to Prof. Guoshun Liu and Prof. Songtao Zhang for their helpful suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest. The research did not involve any human participants or animals.

Supplementary material

216_2018_1453_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (440 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 164 kb)


  1. 1.
    Peedin GF. Tobacco cultivation. In: Stellman JM, Gillespie RM, editors. ILO encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety. Geneva: International Labor Organization; 2011. Accessed on 6 Apr 2017 at
  2. 2.
    Peeran SW, Alsaid FM. Significance and determinants of tobacco use: a brief review. Dent Med Res. 2016;4:33–38.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soneji S, Sargent J, Tanski S. Multiple tobacco product use among US adolescents and young adults. Tob Control. 2017;25:174–80.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ng M, Freeman MK, Fleming TD, Robinson M, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Thomson B, et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, 1980–2012. JAMA. 2014;311:183–92.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hibi N, Higashiguchi S, Hashimoto T, Yamada Y. Gene expression in tobacco low-nicotine mutants. Plant Cell. 1994;6:723–35.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee KJ, Bae SM, Lee MR, Yeon SM, Lee YH, Kim KS. Proteomic analysis of growth phase-dependent proteins of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Proteomics. 2006;6:1274–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li J, Dickerson TJ, Hoffmann-Benning S. Contribution of proteomics in the identification of novel proteins associated with plant growth. J Proteome Res. 2013;12:4882–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lapin D, Ackerveken GVD. Susceptibility to plant disease: more than a failure of host immunity. Trends Plant Sci. 2013;18:546–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaur A, Kumar A, Reddy MS. Plant–pathogen interactions: a proteomic approach. In: Singh RP, Kothari R, Koringa PG, Singh SP, editors. Understanding host–microbiome interactions—an omics approach. Singapore: Springer; 2017.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang SS, Jiao K, Chen HY, Zhang CL, Zhang ZF. An improved ELISA for the determination of tobacco mosaic virus with linear sweep voltammetry detection based on a new system of PAP-H2O2-HRP. Fresenius J Anal Chem. 1999;364:758–62.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu P, Su Y, Dong C, Ding Y, Zhou X. Preliminary proteomic analysis of tobacco leaves affected by volatile organic compounds from floral scent of rose. Plant Growth Regul. 2015;75:689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sierro N, Battey JND, Ouadi S, Ouadi S, Bakaher N, Bovet L, et al. The tobacco genome sequence and its comparison with those of tomato and potato. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3833–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The UniProt Consortium. UniProt: Proteomes—Nicotiana tabacum (Common tobacco). Accessed on 13 Nov 2017 at
  14. 14.
    Unwin RD. Quantification of proteins by iTRAQ. Methods Mol Biol. 2010;658:205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geer MA, Fitzgerald MC. Characterization of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae ATP-interactome using the iTRAQ-SPROX technique. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2015;27:233–43.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mertins P, Mani DR, Ruggles KV, Gillette MA, Clauser KR, Wang P, et al. Proteogenomics connects somatic mutations to signalling in breast cancer. Nature. 2016;534:55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han H, Pappin D, Ross PS, McLuckey SA. Electron transfer dissociation of iTRAQ labeled peptide ions. J Proteome Res. 2008;7:3643–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Casey TM, Khan JM, Bringans SD, Koudelka T, Takle PS, Downs RA, et al. Analysis of reproducibility of proteome coverage and quantitation using isobaric mass tags (iTRAQ and TMT). J Proteome Res. 2017;16:384–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ludwig KR, Dahl R, Hummon AB. Evaluation of the mirn23a cluster through an iTRAQ-based quantitative proteomic approach. J Proteome Res. 2016;15:1497–505.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang J, Zhao Z, Li H, Yang H, Ding J, Wen Y. Comparison of the physiological characters between flue-cured tobacco varieties HD and K326. J Yunnan Agric Univ. 2008;23:599–602.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson CS, Pattison JA, Clevinger EM, Melton TA, Fortnum BA, Mila A. Clarifying the source of black shank resistance in flue-cured tobacco. Plant Health Progress. 2008.
  22. 22.
    Reuveni M, Tuzun S, Cole JS, Siegel MR, Kúc J. The effects of plant age and leaf position on the susceptibility of tobacco to blue mold caused by Peronospora tabacina. Phytopathology. 1986;76:455–8.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shrestha D, Wenninger EJ, Hutchinson PJ, Whitworth JL, Mondal S, Eigenbrode SD, et al. Interactions among potato genotypes, growth stages, virus strains, and inoculation methods in the potato virus Y and green peach aphid pathosystem. Environ Entomol. 2014;43:662–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doribachash M, Dassa B, Pietrokovski S, Jurkevitch E. Proteome-based comparative analyses of growth stages reveal new cell cycle-dependent functions in the predatory bacterium Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:7152–62.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Millar DJ, Whitelegge JP, Bindschedler LV, Rayon C, Boudet AM, Rossignol M, et al. The cell wall and secretory proteome of a tobacco cell line synthesising secondary wall. Proteomics. 2009;9:2355–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang J, Zhang Y, Du Y, Chen S, Tang H. Dynamic metabonomic responses of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants to salt stress. J Proteome Res. 2011;10:1904–14.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prabahar A, Swaminathan S, Loganathan A, Jegadeesan R. Identification of novel inhibitors for tobacco mosaic virus infection in Solanaceae plants. Adv Bioinformatics. 2015;14:198214–22.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    CORESTA. Guide no. 7: A scale for coding growth stagesin tobacco crops. Accessed on 7 Jun 2018 at
  29. 29.
    Bradford MMA. Rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976;72:248–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pandey A, Mann M. Proteomics to study genes and genomes. Nature. 2000;405:837–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Conesa A, Götz S, García-Gómez J, Terol J, Talón M, Robles M. Blast2GO: a universal tool for annotation, visualization and analysis in functional genomics research. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:3674–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xie C, Mao X, Huang J, Ding Y, Wu J, Dong S, et al. KOBAS 2.0: a web server for annotation and identification of enriched pathways and diseases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:316–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martin F, Bovet L, Cordier A, Stanke M, Gunduz I, Peitsch MC, et al. Design of a tobacco exon array with application to investigate the differential cadmium accumulation property in two tobacco varieties. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Green GP. State, class, and technology in tobacco production. Agric Hum Values. 1989;6:54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maggio L, Tirloni L, Pinto A, Diedrich J, Yates JR III, Benavides U, et al. Across intra-mammalian stages of the liver fluke Fasciola hepatica: a proteomic study. Sci Rep. 2016;6:32796–810.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prasad K, Abdelhameed A, Xing D, Reddy AN. Global gene expression analysis using RNA-seq uncovered a new role for SR1/CAMTA3 transcription factor in salt stress. Sci Rep. 2016;6:27021–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lewis RS, Linger LR, Wolff MF, et al. The negative influence of N-mediated TMV resistance on yield in tobacco: linkage drag versus pleiotropy. Theor Appl Genet. 2007;115:169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Russell JD, DeMars R. UDP-glucose: α-D-galactose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase activity in cultured human fibroblasts. Biochem Genet. 1967;1:11–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Technology R&D CenterShanghai Tobacco Group Co., Ltd.ShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations