Skip to main content

Comparative Testis Tissue Proteomics Using 2-Dye Versus 3-Dye DIGE Analysis

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Book cover Difference Gel Electrophoresis

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 1664))

Abstract

Comparative tissue proteomics aims to analyze alterations of the proteome in response to a stimulus. Two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) is a modified and advanced form of 2D gel electrophoresis. DIGE is a powerful biochemical method that compares two or three protein samples on the same analytical gel, and can be used to establish differentially expressed protein levels between healthy normal and diseased pathological tissue sample groups. Minimal DIGE labeling can be used via a 2-dye system with Cy3 and Cy5 or a 3-dye system with Cy2, Cy3, and Cy5 to fluorescently label samples with CyDye flours pre-electrophoresis. DIGE circumvents gel-to-gel variability by multiplexing samples to a single gel and through the use of a pooled internal standard for normalization. This form of quantitative high-resolution proteomics facilitates the comparative analysis and evaluation of tissue protein compositions. Comparing tissue groups under different conditions is crucially important for advancing the biomedical field by characterization of cellular processes, understanding pathophysiological development and tissue biomarker discovery. This chapter discusses 2D-DIGE as a comparative tissue proteomic technique and describes in detail the experimental steps required for comparative proteomic analysis employing both options of 2-dye and 3-dye DIGE minimal labeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Meissner F, Mann M (2014) Quantitative shotgun proteomics: considerations for a high-quality workflow in immunology. Nat Immunol 15(2):112–117. doi:10.1038/ni.2781

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilhelm M, Schlegl J, Hahne H et al (2014) Mass-spectrometry-based draft of the human proteome. Nature 509(7502):582–587. doi:10.1038/nature13319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dubowitz V, Sewry CA, Oldfors A (2013) Muscle biopsy: a practical approach, 4th edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  4. Holland A, Ohlendieck K (2015) Comparative profiling of sperm proteome. Proteomics 15(4):632–648. doi:10.1002/pmic.201400032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jockusch H, Holland A, Staunton L, Schmitt-John T, Heimann P, Dowling P, Ohlendieck K (2014) Pathoproteomics of testicular tissue deficient in the GARP component VPS54: the wobbler mouse model of globozoospermia. Proteomics 14(7–8):839–852. doi:10.1002/pmic.201300189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Holland A, Ohlendieck K (2014) Proteomic identification of muscle-associated biomarkers of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using the wobbler mouse model of primary motor neuropathy. J Integr OMICS 4(2):57–68. doi:10.5584/jiomics.v4i2.171

    Google Scholar 

  7. Holland A, Ohlendieck K (2014) Comparative proteomics for studying muscular dystrophy: intrinsic biological and analytical issues associated with the systemic utilization of tissue specimens. J Proteomics Bioinform S10:002. doi:10.4172/jbs.S10-002

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dowling P, Holland A, Ohlendieck K (2014) Mass spectrometry-based identification of muscle-associated and muscle derived proteomic biomarkers of dystrophinopathies. J Neuromuscul Dis 1(1):15–40. doi:10.3233/JND-140011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rabilloud T, Lelong C (2011) Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis in proteomics: a tutorial. J Proteome 74(10):1829–18241. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2011.05.040

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Murphy S, Dowling P, Ohlendieck K (2016) Comparative skeletal muscle proteomics using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Proteomes 4(3):27. doi:10.3390/proteomes4030027

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Farrell PH (1975) High resolution two-dimensional electrophoresis of proteins. J Biol Chem 250(10):4007–4021

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Rible H (1973) Historical and theoretical aspects of isoelectric focusing. Ann N Y Acad Sci 209:11–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Unlu M, Morgan ME, Minden JS (1997) Difference gel electrophoresis: a single gel method for detecting changes in protein extracts. Electrophoresis 18(11):2071–2077. doi:10.1002/elps.1150181133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Arentz G, Weiland F, Oehler MK, Hoffmann P (2015) State of the art of 2D DIGE. Proteomics Clin Appl 9(3–4):277–288. doi:10.1002/prca.201400119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Minden JS (2012) DIGE: past and future. Methods Mol Biol 854:3–8. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-573-2_1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shaw J, Rowlinson R, Nickson J, Stone T, Sweet A, Williams K, Tongue R (2003) Evaluation of saturation labelling two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis fluorescent dyes. Proteomics 3(7):1181–1195. doi:10.1002/pmic.200300439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tonge R, Shaw J, Middleton B, Rowlingson R, Rayner S, Young J, Pognan F, Hawkins E, Currie I, Davison M (2001) Validation and development of fluorescence two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis proteomics technology. Proteomics 1((3)):377–396. doi: 10.1002/1615–9861(200103)1:3,377::AID-PROT377>3.0.CO;2–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Viswanathan S, Unlu M, Minden JS (2006) Two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis. Nat Protoc 1(3):1351–1358. doi:10.1038/nprot.2006.234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Minden J (2007) Comparative proteomics and difference gel electrophoresis. BioTechniques 43(6):739–745

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Karp NA, Lilley KS (2005) Maximising sensitivity for detecting changes in protein expression: experimental design using minimal CyDyes. Proteomics 5(12):3105–3115. doi:10.1002/pmic.200500083

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karp NA, McCormick PS, Russell MR, Lilley KS (2007) Experimental and statistical consideration to avoid false conclusions in proteomics studies using differential in-gel electrophoresis. Mol Cell Proteomics 6(8):1354–1364. doi:10.1074/mcp.M600274-MCP200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Holland A, Schmitt-John T, Dowling P, Meleady P, Henry M, Clynes M, Ohlendieck K (2014) Intricate effects of primary motor neuropathy on contractile proteins and metabolic muscle enzymes as revealed by label-free mass spectrometry. Biosci Rep 34(4):331–343. doi:10.1042/BSR20140029

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Beckett P (2012) The basics of 2D DIGE. Difference gel electrophoresis (DIGE): methods and protocols. Methods Mol Biol 854:9–18. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-573-2_2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research in the author’s laboratory has been supported by project grants from the Irish Higher Education Authority (BioAT) and Muscular Dystrophy Ireland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashling Holland .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Holland, A. (2018). Comparative Testis Tissue Proteomics Using 2-Dye Versus 3-Dye DIGE Analysis. In: Ohlendieck, K. (eds) Difference Gel Electrophoresis. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1664. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7268-5_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7268-5_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-7267-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-7268-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics