Project description:To get an insight into cytokinin-induced alterations of molecular networks underlying size and structure of a leaf, transgenic Arabidopsis lines (Col-0 background) CaMV35S>GR>ipt, and CaMV35S>GR>HvCKX2 were cultivated in a growth chamber under controlled environmental conditions (50-60% relative humidity, long day, 21/19 °C day/night temperature, 110 µmol m-2 s-1). Plants were activated at 14 DAS by watering once with 50 ml of distilled water supplemented with 10 µM dexamethasone dissolved in 5x10-4% (v/v) DMSO (DEX samples). Corresponding mock-treated control plants were watered with DMSO in water.
Project description:For the MALDI-MSI experiment, we selected 12 different drugs. The drugs were purchased from the LC Laboratories (Woburn, MA; CAS numbers: dabrafenib: 1195765-45-7, dasatinib: 302962-49-8, erlotinib: 183321-74-6, gefitinib: 184475-35-2, imatinib: 152459-95-5, lapatinib: 388082-78-8, pazopanib: 444731-52-6, sorafenib: 284461-73-0, sunitinib: 557795-19-4, trametinib: 871700-17-3, vatalanib: 212141-54-3) and from SelleckChem (Munich, Germany; CAS numbers: ipratropium: 60205-81-4) with >99% purity and were dissolved in methanol (MeOH, (Chromasolv Plus for HPLC) (Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany) at 10 mg/mL concentration. These stock solutions were further diluted with 50% MeOH and five mixtures were generated, each containing four different drug compounds. The spreadsheet in Supporting Information summarizes the composition of the five drug mixtures. A 5 mg/mL solution of α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid (CHCA, Sigma-Aldrich) dissolved in 50% MeOH containing 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany) was used as matrix solution.
Project description:Cells were treated with DMSO (biological triplicate) or degrader at indicated dose and time (Meta Treatment Table) and cells were harvested by centrifugation. Lysis buffer (8 M Urea, 50 mM NaCl, 50 mM 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid (EPPS) pH 8.5, Protease and Phosphatase inhibitors from Roche) was added to the cell pellets and homogenized by 20 passes through a 21 gauge (1.25 in. long) needle to achieve a cell lysate with a protein concentration between 1 - 4 mg/mL. A micro-BCA assay (Pierce) was used to determine the final protein concentration in the cell lysate. 200 µg of protein for each sample were reduced and alkylated as previously described1. Proteins were precipitated using methanol/chloroform. In brief, four volumes of methanol were added to the cell lysate, followed by one volume of chloroform, and finally three volumes of water. The mixture was vortexed and centrifuged to separate the chloroform phase from the aqueous phase. The precipitated protein was washed with three volumes of methanol, centrifuged and the resulting washed precipitated protein was allowed to air dry. Precipitated protein was resuspended in 4 M Urea, 50 mM HEPES pH 7.4, followed by dilution to 1 M urea with the addition of 200 mM EPPS, pH 8. Proteins were first digested with LysC (1:50; enzyme:protein) for 12 hours at room temperature. The LysC digestion was diluted to 0.5 M Urea with 200 mM EPPS pH 8 followed by digestion with trypsin (1:50; enzyme:protein) for 6 hours at 37 °C. Tandem mass tag (TMT) reagents (Thermo Fisher Scientific) were dissolved in anhydrous acetonitrile (ACN) according to manufacturer’s instructions. Anhydrous ACN was added to each peptide sample to a final concentration of 30% v/v, and labeling was induced with the addition of TMT reagent to each sample at a ratio of 1:4 peptide:TMT label. The 11 or 16-plex labeling reactions were performed for 1.5 hours at room temperature and the reaction quenched by the addition of hydroxylamine to a final concentration of 0.3% for 15 minutes at room temperature. Each of the sample channels were combined in a 1:1 ratio, desalted using C18 solid phase extraction cartridges (Waters) and analyzed by LC-MS for channel ratio comparison. Samples were then combined using the adjusted volumes determined in the channel ratio analysis and dried down in a speed vacuum. The combined sample was then resuspended in 1% formic acid and acidified (pH 2 - 3) before being subjected to desalting with C18 SPE (Sep-Pak, Waters). Samples were then offline fractionated into 96 fractions by high pH reverse-phase HPLC (Agilent LC1260) through an aeris peptide xb-c18 column (phenomenex) with mobile phase A containing 5% acetonitrile and 10 mM NH4HCO3 in LC-MS grade H2O, and mobile phase B containing 90% acetonitrile and 10 mM NH4HCO3 in LC-MS grade H2O (both pH 8.0). The 96 resulting fractions were then pooled in a non-continuous manner into 24 fractions and these fractions were used for subsequent mass spectrometry analysis. Data were collected using an Orbitrap Fusion Lumos mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) coupled with a Proxeon EASY-nLC 1200 LC pump (Thermo Fisher Scientific) or an Orbitrap Eclipse Tribrid mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA) coupled with an UltiMate 3000 RSLCnano System. Peptides were separated on an EasySpray ES803a/ES803a.rev2 75 μm inner diameter microcapillary column (Thermo Fisher Scientific) or a 100 µm inner diameter microcapillary column packed with ~ 50 cm of Accucore C18 resin (2.6 µM, 100 Å, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Peptides were separated using a 190 min gradient of 6 - 27% acetonitrile in 1.0% formic acid with a flow rate of 300 or 350 nL/min. Each analysis used an MS3-based TMT method as described previously. The data were acquired using a mass range of m/z 340 – 1350, resolution 120,000, AGC target 5 x 105, maximum injection time 100 ms, dynamic exclusion of 120 seconds for the peptide measurements in the Orbitrap. Data dependent MS2 spectra were acquired in the ion trap with a normalized collision energy (NCE) set at 35%, AGC target set to 1.8 x 104 and a maximum injection time of 120 ms. MS3 scans were acquired in the Orbitrap with a HCD collision energy set to 55%, AGC target set to 2 x 105, maximum injection time of 150 ms, resolution at 50,000 and with a maximum synchronous precursor selection (SPS) precursors set to 10.
Project description:We carried out a prospective, longitudinal, single-center, observational cohort study of patients with confirmed acute methanol poisoning that were treated in hospitals during a mass methanol poisoning outbreak in the Czech Republic in 2012. Venous blood for proteomic analysis was obtained from 24 patients with confirmed acute methanol poisoning upon admission to the hospital (group M (“Methanol”)) with heparin administration for hemodialysis and ethanol or fomepizole administration as the antidote to block ADH. In the follow-up group of survivors of methanol poisoning (group S (“Survivors”)), venous blood samples for proteomic analysis were obtained from 46 patients during the examination, which took place 4 years after discharge from the hospital. For the control group not exposed to methanol, 24 healthy subjects were recruited (group C, “Controls”). Blood samples were spun, the serum was separated, and the samples were frozen to −80 °C until the analyses. Blood serum samples were depleted of most abundant serum proteins using Agilent MARS 14 column, samples fractionated and fractions containing proteins of interest precipitated. Samples were analyzed using LC-MS/MS Thermo Orbitrap Fusion (UHPLC-ESI-Q-OT-qIT) and identified proteins with differential expression.
Project description:Hypoxic water had 5 mg/L of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and normoxic water had 11.5 mg/L DO. 40 immature rainbow trout (about 100 g) were housed for 7 days under these conditions (20 fish in each treatment). Then fish were anesthetized with 100 mg/L MS-222, and blood was sampled using caudal puncture with heparinized syringes. The blood was centrifuged at 10 000 x g for 4 minutes in Heraeus Fresco 21 centrifuge (Thermo Fisher). Plasma was removed from this using a pipette, and placed in cryotubes, flash frozen in liquid nitrogen, and then stored at -80oC until preparation for proteomic analysis.
Project description:The emergence and quick spread of SARS-CoV-2 has pointed at a low capacity response for testing large populations in many countries, in line of material, technical and staff limitations. The traditional RT-qPCR diagnostic test remains the reference method and is by far the most widely used test. These assays are limited to a few probe sets, require large sample PCR reaction volumes, along with an expensive and time-consuming RNA extraction step. Here we describe a quantitative nanofluidic assay that overcomes some of these shortcomings, based on the BiomarkTM instrument from Fluidigm. This system offers the possibility of performing 4608 qPCR end-points in a single run, equivalent to 192 clinical samples combined with 12 pairs of primers/probe sets in duplicate, thus allowing the monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 including the detection of specific SARS-CoV-2 variants, as well as the detection other pathogens and/or host cellular responses (virus receptors, response markers, microRNAs). The 10 nL-range volume of BiomarkTM reactions is compatible with sensitive and reproducible reactions that can be easily and cost-effectively adapted to various RT-qPCR configurations and sets of primers/probe. Finally, we also evaluated the use of inactivating lysis buffers composed of various detergents in the presence or absence of proteinase K to assess the compatibility of these buffers with a direct reverse transcription enzymatic step and we propose several protocols, bypassing the need for RNA purification. We advocate that the combined utilization of an optimized processing buffer and a high-throughput real-time PCR device would contribute to improve the turn-around-time to deliver the test results to patients and increase the SARS-CoV-2 testing capacities.
Project description:BackgroundThe current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose.MethodsTen patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient.ResultsFifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%.ConclusionsNS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.