, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 153–159 | Cite as

Comparison of five commercial extraction kits for subsequent membrane protein profiling

  • Stefanie Bünger
  • Uwe J. Roblick
  • Jens K. HabermannEmail author
Method in Cell Science


Membrane proteins account for 70–80% of all pharmaceutical targets emphasizing their clinical relevance. Identification of new, differentially expressed membrane proteins reflecting distinct disease properties is thus of high importance. Unfortunately, isolation and analysis of membrane-bound proteins is hampered by their relative low abundance in total cell lysates, their frequently large size and their hydrophobic properties. We thus aimed to identify protocols that allow for highly efficient isolation and purification of membrane-bound proteins for subsequent protein profiling. We present a comparative study of different membrane protein extraction methods that vary in total protein yield between 0.02 and 4.8 mg using constant cell pellets of the colorectal carcinoma cell line SW620. We also demonstrate by means of polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS–PAGE) and Western blot analysis that the majority of commercial membrane extraction kits harbor a substantial cytosolic contamination of their membranous fraction. Based on purity of membranous fraction, protein yield, time and costs, we show superiority of two commercial extraction kits for downstream proteome analyses of membrane proteins.


Extraction techniques Membrane proteins Commercial kits Sub-cellular fractions Contamination Protein yield 



We’d like to thank Dr. Britta Fritzsche and M.Sc. Timo Gemoll for experimental advice and Katja Klempt-Gießing for technical assistance.

Competing interests statement

The authors declare no competing interests.


  1. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carter P, Smith L, Ryan M (2004) Identification and validation of cell surface antigens for antibody targeting in oncology. Endocr Relat Cancer 11:659–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen JQ, Contreras RG, Wang R, Fernandez SV, Shoshani L, Russo LH, Cereijido M, Russo J (2006) Sodium/potassium ATPase (Na + , K +-ATPase) and ouabain/related cardiac glycosides: a new paradigm for development of anti- breast cancer drugs? Breast Cancer Res Treat 96:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corsten MF, Hofstra L, Narula J, Reutelingsperger CP (2006) Counting heads in the war against cancer: defining the role of annexin A5 imaging in cancer treatment and surveillance. Cancer Res 66:1255–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dissemond J, Busch M, Kothen T, Mors J, Weimann TK, Lindeke A, Goos M, Wagner SN (2004) Differential downregulation of endoplasmic reticulum-residing chaperones calnexin and calreticulin in human metastatic melanoma. Cancer Lett 203:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis JA, Jackman MR, Luzio JP (1992) The post-synthetic sorting of endogenous membrane proteins examined by the simultaneous purification of apical and basolateral plasma membrane fractions from Caco-2 cells. Biochem J 283(Pt 2):553–560Google Scholar
  7. Helenius A, Simons K (1975) Solubilization of membranes by detergents. Biochim Biophys Acta 415:29–79Google Scholar
  8. Hopkins AL, Mason JS, Overington JP (2006) Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr Opin Struct Biol 16:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kenis H, Hofstra L, Reutelingsperger CP (2007) Annexin A5: shifting from a diagnostic towards a therapeutic realm. Cell Mol Life Sci 64:2859–2860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mijatovic T, Ingrassia L, Facchini V, Kiss R (2008) Na +/K + -ATPase alpha subunits as new targets in anticancer therapy. Expert Opin Ther Targets 12:1403–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Overington JP, Al-Lazikani B, Hopkins AL (2006) How many drug targets are there? Nat Rev Drug Discov 5:993–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sanders CR, Myers JK (2004) Disease-related misassembly of membrane proteins. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 33:25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Santoni V, Molloy M, Rabilloud T (2000) Membrane proteins and proteomics: un amour impossible? Electrophoresis 21:1054–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tanford C, Reynolds JA (1976) Characterization of membrane proteins in detergent solutions. Biochim Biophys Acta 457:133–170Google Scholar
  15. Wallin E, von Heijne G (1998) Genome-wide analysis of integral membrane proteins from eubacterial, archaean, and eukaryotic organisms. Protein Sci 7:1029–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wehbi NK, Dugger AL, Bonner RB, Pitha JV, Hurst RE, Hemstreet GP 3rd (2002) Pan-cadherin as a high level phenotypic biomarker for prostate cancer. J Urol 167:2215–2221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhang L, Ashendel CL, Becker GW, Morre DJ (1994) Isolation and characterization of the principal ATPase associated with transitional endoplasmic reticulum of rat liver. J Cell Biol 127:1871–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Bünger
    • 1
  • Uwe J. Roblick
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jens K. Habermann
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory for Surgical Research, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Lübeck, LübeckLübeckGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical Biochemistry and BiophysicsKarolinska InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations