Cover Picture: Proteomics 6/2009

In this issue of Proteomics you will find the following highlighted articles: Keeping up with the lung cancers You're in good company if you smoke and develop lung cancer. The World Health Organization estimates 1.2 million new cases occur every year. On the other hand, 1.1 million people die from it every year‐bummer. One reason for the high death rate is the frequent development of resistance to several of the most commonly used drugs simultaneously. Multiple drug resistance (MDR) is the major cause of chemotherapeutic failure. Keenan et al. explored the proteomic changes associated with MDR failure (adriamycin) in a cultured lung cancer cell line (DLKP) and several subtypes. Adriamycin normally kills by blocking replication at DNA gyrase and by generating reactive oxygen species that lead to apoptosis. Proteomes were examined by 2‐D DIGE. Approximately 80 proteins displayed quantitative shifts, 32 showed a correlation with resistance, 24 being linked positively to resistance, 6 correlated negatively. Some known targets did not appear on the 2‐D maps consistently. Keenan, J. et al., Proteomics 2009, 9, 1556‐1566. An image of spit Spitting images have been around for a long time. The phrase is possibly human‐kind's first recognition of genetically transmitted traits. Proteomic analysis of saliva has only developed recently. The question raised by Walz et al. here is “What is the possible contribution of saliva to the high level of infection by Helicobacter pylori?” H. pylori is known to have extracellular adhesins that bind to a number of salivary proteins. A convenient way to detect targets of adhesins was found to be incubating 1‐D and 2‐D PAGE Western blots with an overlay of whole H. pylori. Targets detected included mucins, sialic acid‐containing glycoproteins, fucose‐containing blood group antigens and each pair of salivary glands had a different binding pattern. Walz, A. et al., Proteomics 2009, 9, 1582‐1592. Mix'em up, folks Conventional analytical chemical identifications frequently yield a characteristic spectrum of peaks for particular compounds on particular instruments. Just look up the observed spectrum in the “library” of standard spectra for identification. It is not so simple for proteins. Because of the size of a potential proteomic peptide library and the diversity of instruments used, most often the observed spectrum is compared to a theoretical spectrum for a peptide of interest. Ahrné et al. combine the two for improved performance. First they run the spectrum of interest through an exhaustive proteome search program (Phenyx), then through a sensitive library search (SpectraST) of the highest scoring sequences in the previous Phenyx search plus a number of controls. In the first (relatively simple) test, Phenyx matched 362 spectra, SpectraST made 639 matches at the same error detection level. In a more complex test, Phenyx generated >1000 hits, SpectraST 1304 hits. Ahrné, E. et al., Proteomics 2009, 9, 1731‐1736.