Archives of Industrial Biotechnology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (629)348-3199

Mini Review - Archives of Industrial Biotechnology (2024) Volume 8, Issue 4

Comparative proteomics: Unraveling species-specific protein functions

Justin Wong*

Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, USA

*Corresponding Author:
Justin Wong
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Boston University
Boston, USA
E-mail:justinwong@bu.edu

Received: 26-Jul-2024, Manuscript No. AAAIB-24-144209; Editor assigned: 29-Jul-2024, PreQC No. AAAIB-24-144209 (PQ); Reviewed: 09-Aug-2024, QC No. AAAIB-24-144209; Revised: 21-Aug-2024, Manuscript No. AAAIB-24-144209 (R); Published: 27-Aug-2024, DOI: 10.35841/aaaib- 8.4.225

Citation: Wong J. Comparative proteomics: Unravelling species-specific protein functions. Arch Ind Biot. 2024; 8(4):225

Visit for more related articles at Archives of Industrial Biotechnology

Comparative proteomics is an evolving field that delves into the similarities and differences in protein expression and function across various species. This approach is instrumental in understanding how evolutionary processes shape protein function and regulation, which can provide insights into species-specific traits, disease mechanisms, and potential therapeutic targets. By analyzing protein profiles from different organisms, researchers can uncover unique and conserved features of biological systems, thereby advancing our knowledge of protein function and its impact on organismal biology [1], [2]

Proteins are the ultimate effectors of cellular processes, and their functions are dictated by their structure, interactions, and post-translational modifications. While genomic sequences provide a blueprint of potential protein-coding genes, proteomics offers a dynamic view of the actual protein products, their abundance, and their functional states. Comparative proteomics extends this understanding by comparing protein expression and modifications across species, revealing how evolutionary pressures have shaped protein functions to meet species-specific needs [3].

MS is a cornerstone of proteomic analysis, providing detailed information on protein identity, abundance, and post-translational modifications. High-resolution MS techniques, such as Orbitrap and Q-TOF, enable precise quantification and characterization of proteins across different species. 2-DE separates proteins based on isoelectric point and molecular weight, allowing for the visualization of proteome differences between species. Although less used today due to advances in MS, 2-DE remains valuable for specific applications. LFQ methods, such as spectral counting and ion intensity-based quantification, compare protein levels across samples without the need for labeling, offering a straightforward approach to comparative analysis. Isobaric tagging allows for the simultaneous quantification of proteins from multiple samples, enhancing the efficiency of comparative studies [4], [5]

By comparing protein profiles across different species, researchers can identify conserved proteins and functions, shedding light on evolutionary processes. For example, studies on proteomic changes in model organisms like yeast and fruit flies provide insights into fundamental biological processes and their evolutionary conservation. Comparative proteomics can highlight species-specific aspects of disease mechanisms. For instance, differences in protein expression between human and animal models of disease can reveal unique aspects of pathology and guide the development of more effective therapies. By comparing proteins in genetically modified organisms with their wild-type counterparts, scientists can uncover the functional consequences of genetic alterations. This approach is useful for validating gene function and understanding the impact of genetic variations on protein expression and function. In agriculture, comparative proteomics helps in identifying protein markers associated with desirable traits in crops and livestock. Additionally, it can reveal how different species respond to environmental stressors, aiding in the development of stress-resistant crops [6], [7]

Proteomic samples can be highly complex, and differences in protein expression levels between species may be subtle. Advanced techniques and robust analytical methods are required to overcome these challenges. Integrating proteomic data with genomic and transcriptomic information is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of protein function. Developing effective bioinformatics tools for data integration and interpretation is an ongoing challenge. Standardizing protocols and data reporting in comparative proteomics is essential for reproducibility and comparability across studies. Looking ahead, advances in technology and data analysis are likely to enhance the scope and accuracy of comparative proteomics. Innovations such as single-cell proteomics, advanced mass spectrometry techniques, and integrative omics approaches will provide deeper insights into species-specific protein functions and their implications for biology and medicine [8], [9]

Comparative proteomics is a powerful tool for unraveling the complexities of protein function across different species. By examining protein expression and modifications in a comparative context, researchers can gain valuable insights into evolutionary processes, disease mechanisms, and functional genomics. As technology and methods continue to advance, comparative proteomics will play an increasingly important role in understanding the intricacies of protein function and its impact on diverse biological systems [10].

References

  1. Bartl J, Zanini M, Bernardi F, et al. The HHIP-AS1 lncRNA promotes tumorigenicity through stabilization of dynein complex 1 in human SHH-driven tumors. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):4061.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Martins RD, Faria JM, Rossini BC, et al. Proteomic analyses unraveling water stress response in two Eucalyptus species originating from contrasting environments for aridity. Mol Biol Rep. 2020;47:5191-205.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Ding Z, Wang N, Ji N, et al. Proteomics technologies for cancer liquid biopsies. Mol Cancer. 2022;21(1):53.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Huttlin EL, Bruckner RJ, Navarrete-Perea J et al. Dual proteome-scale networks reveal cell-specific remodeling of the human interactome. Cell. 2021;184(11):3022-40.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Mund A, Brunner AD, Mann M. Unbiased spatial proteomics with single-cell resolution in tissues. Mol Cell. 2022;82(12):2335-49.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. Letunica N, Van Den Helm S, McCafferty C, et al. Proteomics in thrombosis and hemostasis. Thromb Haemost. 2022;122(07):1076-84.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Goncalves E, Poulos RC, Cai Z, et al. Pan-cancer proteomic map of 949 human cell lines. Cancer Cell. 2022;40(8):835-49.

    8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Rotello RJ, Veenstra TD. Mass spectrometry techniques: principles and practices for quantitative proteomics. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2021;22(2):121-33.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. van Oostrum M, Blok TM, Giandomenico SL, et al. The proteomic landscape of synaptic diversity across brain regions and cell types. Cell. 2023;186(24):5411-27.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Makhmut A, Qin D, Fritzsche S, et al. A framework for ultra-low-input spatial tissue proteomics. Cell Syst. 2023;14(11):1002-14.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App