Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Comparisons of the sensitivities of one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) electrophoreses to detect genetic variability have generally shown that the 2D approach appears to be two- to five-fold less sensitive than conventional 1D approaches. Concerns about the validity of this conclusion have arisen because such comparisons have involved mainly enzymic proteins in 1D approaches versus a complex mixture of soluble proteins in most 2D analyses. Comparisons involving the absolute number of variants detected, using 1D and 2D sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE), denatured mouse blood proteins isolated from C3HeB/FeJ and C57B1/6J inbred strains of mice, and highly sensitive silver staining, indicate that the latter uncovers at least as much variability as the former. Although the relative percentage of variable bands (1D SDS-PAGE) was greater than the relative percentage of variable spots (2D SDS-PAGE) when proteins of intact erythrocytes were surveyed, both techniques uncovered approximately equal percentages of variable proteins when the mouse erythrocyte proteins were partitioned into membrane and lysate components. Therefore, the simpler 1D SDS-PAGE was found to be as effective as 2D SDS-PAGE in detecting protein variability. Since 1D SDS-PAGE separates proteins primarily on the basis of molecular weight and to a lesser degree on other primary protein sequence alterations, much of the variability observed by 2D SDS-PAGE may be due to these same features and unit charge differences may not play a significant role in detecting variability in the proteins studied. This differs from enzymic proteins, where such charge differences appear to be responsible for much of the variability. This study also indicated that decreasing the number of proteins in samples (membranes and lysates vs whole erythrocytes) increased the ability of both of these techniques to resolve differences. Mating studies indicated that most of the differences detected with both techniques were inherited and were not artifacts.