Dataset Information

MudPIT analyses of the proteins co-purified with the junction-localized tumor suppressors Scribble (Scrib) and Discs Large (Dlg) by immunoprecipitation from fly embryos

ABSTRACT: Fly embryos (w1118, Dlg-GFP, or Scrib-GFP) were lysed with lysis buffer (25mM Tris-HCl, 150mM EDTA, 1% NP-40, 5% glycerol, 1mM DTT, 1x protease inhibitor). Debris was removed by centrifugation, and extracts were cleared by incubation with Dynabeads (1 hour). Immunocomplexes were formed by incubation for 2 hours with Dlg antibody-conjugated magnetic beads or GFP-nanobody (GFP-Trap_MA, ChromoTek). Immunocomplexes were washed with wash buffer (25mM Tris-HCl, 150mM EDTA), eluted with elution buffer (50mM glycine PH 2.5, 150mM NaCl), and then neutralized with Tris-HCl PH 9.5. Two biological replicates of Dlg-IPs (and their corresponding negative controls without antibody) and two GFP-IPs from flies expressing either Dlg-GFP or Scrib-GFP (and their negative GFP-IP control) were analyzed by MudPIT mass spectrometry. In brief, TCA-precipitated protein eluates were urea-denatured, reduced, alkylated, and digested with endoproteinase LysC followed by trypsin. The peptide mixtures were loaded onto microcapillary fused silica columns (100um i.d.), placed in-line with an Agilent 11000 quaternary pump, and analyzed by a 10-step MudPIT on linear ion traps. MS/MS datasets were searched using SEQUEST (Eng et al., 1994) against a D. melanogaster database (NCBI, 2012-03-08 release) containing 18,564 non-redundant proteins and 177 usual contaminants (human keratins, IgGs, and proteolytic enzymes). To estimate false discover rates (FDRs), the amino acid sequence of each non-redundant protein was randomized and searched at the same time. Peptide/spectrum matches were sorted and selected using DTASelect (Tabb et al., 2002) with the following criteria set: spectra/peptide matches were retained only if they had a DeltCn of at least 0.8, and minimum XCorr of 1.8 for singly, 2.5 for doubly, and 3.5 for triply charged spectra. Additionally, the peptides had to be minimum 7 amino acids in length and fully tryptic. The FDRs were 0.5 +/- 0.3 and 1.3 +/- 0.8 at the peptide and protein levels, respectively. Peptide hits from multiple runs were compared using CONTRAST (Tabb et al., 2002). The distributed normalized spectral abundance factors (dNSAF) were used to estimate relative protein levels (Zhang et al., 2010).

INSTRUMENT(S): LTQ, LTQ XL

ORGANISM(S): Drosophila Melanogaster (ncbitaxon:7227)

SUBMITTER: Laurence Florens

PROVIDER: MSV000082907 | MassIVE |

SECONDARY ACCESSION(S): PXD011016

REPOSITORIES: MassIVE

ACCESS DATA

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
		Other

Items per page:

1 - 1 of 1

Publications

Junctional tumor suppressors interact with 14-3-3 proteins to control planar spindle alignment.

Nakajima Yu-Ichiro YI Lee Zachary T ZT McKinney Sean A SA Swanson Selene K SK Florens Laurence L Gibson Matthew C MC

The Journal of cell biology 20190514 6

Proper orientation of the mitotic spindle is essential for cell fate determination, tissue morphogenesis, and homeostasis. During epithelial proliferation, planar spindle alignment ensures the maintenance of polarized tissue architecture, and aberrant spindle orientation can disrupt epithelial integrity. Nevertheless, in vivo mechanisms that restrict the mitotic spindle to the plane of the epithelium remain poorly understood. Here we show that the junction-localized tumor suppressors Scribbled ( ...[more]

PMID: 31088859

Similar Datasets

Project description:Glioblastoma stem cells (TS-543) were harvested and cross-linked with 1% formaldehyde for 10 mins at room temperature. The cells were lysed using SDS Lysis buffer for ChIP (1% SDS, 10 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8). The lysate was then sonicated for 25 cycles at 30% amplitude (15 s ON and 45 s OFF). The sonicated samples were then diluted in ChIP dilution buffer (0.01% SDS, 1% Triton-X-100, 1.2 mM EDTA, 16.7 mM Tris–HCl pH 8, 167 mM NaCl) and used for the immunoprecipitation with H3K27ac (Abcam, Ab4729), H2AZ (Active motive, cat#39113) and H3K27ac (Abcam cat#ab8580). After an over-night incubation with antibody, the bound DNA was washed sequentially with low salt wash buffer (0.1% SDS, 1% Triton X 100, 2 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 8, 150 mM NaCl), high salt wash buffer (0.1% SDS, 1% Triton X-100, 2 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris–HCl pH 8, 500 mM NaCl), LiCl wash buffer (0.25 M LiCl, 1% NP40, 1%deoxycholate, 1 mM EDTA, 10 mM Tris–HCl pH 8) and TE wash buffer (10 mM Tris–HCl pH 8, 1 mM EDTA) to remove non-specific sequences and eluted in the elution buffer (84 mg NaHCO3, 1 ml 10% SDS, 9 ml H2O). Then the samples were reverse cross-linked using NaCl at 65°C overnight. The eluted DNA was purified and used for library preparation. Library preparation was performed as previously described as described in Bowman et al. BMC Genomics 2013. Briefly, end repair with NEBNext End Repair enzyme (NEB, E6050) and clean-up with 2.4x volume AMPure XP beads (Beckman Coulter, A63880). A-tailing with Klenow Fragment (NEB, M0212) and purified with 2.4x volume AMPure XP beads. Adapter ligation reactions contained annealed universal adapter and T4 rapid ligase (NEB, B0202) and clean-up with 1.8x volume AMPure XP beads. Chromatin was amplified using KAPA Real-time Library Amplification Kit (KAPABIOSYSTEMS, KK2701) with universal primer and barcoded primer. Amplified chromatin was purified with QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen) and sequenced paired-end with Illumina NextSeq 500.

Project description:Samples were purchased from Clontech as mRNA. Hybridization material was generated through a random-priming amplification procedure (RP-AMP) using primers with a random sequence at the 3' end and a fixed motif at the 5' end. shDNP256 (first strand synthesis): 5'- TAG ATG CTG TTG NNN NNN NNN -3' shT7N9 (second strand synthesis): 5'- ACT ATA GGG AGA NNN NNN NNN -3' 1.5 g of mRNA was reverse-transcribed with Superscript II and the DP256 random primer for 20 minutes at 42 C (10 mM DTT, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 75 mM KCl, 8 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM dNTPs, 5 U/ l Superscript II). The RNA was degraded with the addition of 20 l volume of 0.5N sodium hydroxide and 0.25 M EDTA for 20 minutes at 65 C. The single stranded cDNA was purified using a commercial kit (Qiagen Qiaquick). The resulting product of single stranded cDNA was placed in its entirety in a second strand reaction. Second strand synthesis reactions utilized shT7N9 random primer and the Klenow fragment of DNA polymerase utilizing standard reaction conditions (37 C for 60 minutes, 0.2 mM DTT, 2.1 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.9, 2.1 mM MgCl2, 10.7 mM NaCl, 1.07 mM dNTPs, 0.1U/ l Klenow), followed by another Qiaquick purification. Multiple polymerase chain reactions were run using 0.15 g of double stranded DNA and standard reaction conditions. Amplification was achieved using 10 cycles of PCR with the DP256 and T7 primers (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.4, 50 mM KCl, 0.01 mM dNTPs, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.01 U/ l Taq Polymerase) DP256: 5'- GTT CGA GAC CTC TAG ATG CTG TTG -3' T7: 5'- AA TTA ATA CGA CTC ACT ATA GGG AGA -3' followed by Qiaquick purification. Further amplification was achieved using in vitro transcription reactions with X0.5 g dsDNA and T7 RNA Polymerase (7.5 mM DTT, 40 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 14.25 mM MgCl2, 10 mM NaCl, 2 mM Spermidine, 125 U/ml RNAguard, 2.5 mM dNTPs, 15 U/ml IPPase, 25kU/ml T7 Polymerase) for 16 hours at 42 C. The cRNA was purified (RNeasy) and reverse transcribed using Superscript and random 9-mers and amino-allyl dUTP (42 C for 20 minutes, 10 mM DTT, 50mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 75 mM KCl, 8 mM MgCl2, 0.5 mM dNTPs, 0.5 mM aa-dUTP, 5 U/ l Superscript II). The cDNA for each channel was covalently coupled separately with Cy5 and Cy3 monoreactive fluors, respectively, in 1M sodium bicarbonate, pH 9.0, followed by quenching with 4.0 M hydroxylamine. The Cy5 and Cy3 labelled cDNAs were purified with a QIAquick PCR purification kit and the percentage dye incorporation and total cDNA yield was determined spectrophotometrically. Cy5 and Cy3 labelled cDNAs were combined and added to 2 mls 30% formamide with Herring Sperm DNA for hybridization to the microarray. Further details can be found in Castle et al., Genome Biol 2003;4(10):R66, http://genomebiology.com/2003/4/10/R66 , Roberts CJ et al., Science 2000, 287:873-880, and Schadt, Edwards, et al., unpublished. Normalization of single channel data is described in Ying, et al., "Identification of Chromosomal Regions Containing Transcribed Sequences Using Microarrays and Computational Methods" , 2003 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Biopharmaceutical Section [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, 2003. Briefly, an invariant set of probes was selected based on their intensity ranks. Then, a LOESS regression model was fit for Cy5 vs. Cy3 intensities for all probes in the invariant set. Finally, for all probes on the array the Cy5 intensities were normalized to the corresponding Cy3 intensities using prediction values from the regression model. Note that the normalized intensity values given here were used for all analyses reported in the accompanying paper. The ratio values reported here were not used for the analysis described in the manuscript and are not calculated from the normalized intensity values given below. Keywords: other