2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03592-2
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A proximity-dependent biotinylation map of a human cell

Abstract: HEK293 Flp-In T-Rex were authenticated by STR analysis with The Center for Applied Genomics Genetic Analysis Facility (Sick Kids Hospital, Toronto). HeLa cells and primary fibroblasts were not independently authenticated Mycoplasma contaminationCell lines were routinely monitored for mycoplasma contamination as assessed by a commercial kit (MycoAlert, Lonza). Commonly misidentified lines (See ICLAC register)No commonly misidentified cell lines were used in this study.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

18
339
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 349 publications
(382 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
18
339
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparison between the two studies yielded 960 proteins unique to the current study, 536 unique to the TAP-MS study, and 159 proteins shared between the two (S3 Fig) . GO-term analysis for molecular function, biological process, and cellular component were performed on the hits from the TAP-MS data (S4, S5, and S6 Figs). Proximity labeling methods are particularly suited for identifying the location of bait proteins [23,24] therefore, cell component analysis was compared between the two lists (S7 Fig) . Given the high amount of unique hits, it was not surprising to see major differences between cell component enrichment between viral proteins. NSP1 uniquely enriched for hits associated with preinitiation complex and ribosomal components by BIOID, but not by TAP-MS. Contrastingly, NSP9 enriched for similar factors only by TAP-MS.…”
Section: Plos Pathogensmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparison between the two studies yielded 960 proteins unique to the current study, 536 unique to the TAP-MS study, and 159 proteins shared between the two (S3 Fig) . GO-term analysis for molecular function, biological process, and cellular component were performed on the hits from the TAP-MS data (S4, S5, and S6 Figs). Proximity labeling methods are particularly suited for identifying the location of bait proteins [23,24] therefore, cell component analysis was compared between the two lists (S7 Fig) . Given the high amount of unique hits, it was not surprising to see major differences between cell component enrichment between viral proteins. NSP1 uniquely enriched for hits associated with preinitiation complex and ribosomal components by BIOID, but not by TAP-MS. Contrastingly, NSP9 enriched for similar factors only by TAP-MS.…”
Section: Plos Pathogensmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A strong negative expression correlation was observed between genes in these categories and SERBP1 both in brain and patient-derived GBM samples, implicating SERBP1 in brain function and development (Kosti et al, 2020). Two proximity-dependent biotinylating screening studies identified SERBP1 as an interaction partner of RBPs known to regulate synaptic plasticity such as FMR1, FXR1, FXR2, CAPRIN1, and SYNCRIP (Youn et al, 2018;Go et al, 2021). Additionally, SERBP1 has a role in the SUMOylation of certain proteins (Lemos and Kobarg, 2006), and is itself SUMOylated (Hendriks et al, 2014) on a lysine-rich sequence between the two RGG boxes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of note, Liu and coworkers ( 16 ) detected multiple cross-links between AIFM1 and AK2 as well in mouse heart mitochondria. Moreover, charting large affinity purifications MS (AP-MS) depositories, we found that they contained multiple instances of COX subunits interacting with AIFM1 ( 30 32 ) ( Dataset S2 ). Yet, buried in datasets generated by large-scale analyses of the mitochondrial interactome, these indications for AIFM1 binding to COX seem to have gone unnoticed so far.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%