Comparative functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster proteomes
2009

Comparative Analysis of Proteomes in C. elegans and Drosophila melanogaster

Sample size: 10977 publication 10 minutes Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Schrimpf Sabine P, Weiss Manuel, Reiter Lukas, Ahrens Christian H, Jovanovic Marko, Malmström Johan, Brunner Erich, Mohanty Sonali, Lercher Martin J, Hunziker Peter E, Aebersold Ruedi, von Mering Christian, Hengartner Michael O

Primary Institution: Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Zurich

Hypothesis

How do protein abundance levels compare between the proteomes of C. elegans and D. melanogaster?

Conclusion

The study found a strong correlation in protein abundances between C. elegans and Drosophila melanogaster, suggesting evolutionary conservation of protein levels.

Supporting Evidence

  • More than half of all predicted C. elegans proteins were identified.
  • Protein abundances of orthologous proteins in metazoans correlate remarkably well.
  • Operon-encoded proteins are expressed more strongly than individually transcribed genes.
  • Experimental confirmation of 1,062 predicted genes without transcript data.
  • Identified novel peptides suggesting alternative translational start sites.

Takeaway

Scientists looked at the proteins in two different animals and found that they need similar amounts of the same proteins, even though the animals look very different.

Methodology

The study used shotgun proteomics and mass spectrometry to identify and quantify proteins in C. elegans and compared them to Drosophila melanogaster.

Potential Biases

Potential bias in protein identification due to reliance on mass spectrometry, which may favor more abundant proteins.

Limitations

The study may not capture all proteins due to biases in detection methods, particularly for low-abundance proteins.

Participant Demographics

The study focused on the nematode C. elegans and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster.

Statistical Information

P-Value

4.65E−08

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pbio.1000048

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication