BIOINFORMATICS — INSTRUMENT INTERPRETATION PROTEOMIC PROFILES OF MEAT PROTEIN

Proteomic technologies have proven very effective for detection in meat products of biochemical changes, such as changes in heat resistant and species-specific proteins that could be relevant bio-markers.

In the work presented in this report (for the period of 2013–2016), several tissue-specific proteins were detected in the samples of meat and specially developed meat products using proteomic technologies and identified as individual biomarkers in meat product control.

The existence of a large number of different proteins resulted in the need to create information arrays — databases (or banks). Currently, there are a number of general and specialized databases that are available online to anyone interested. When studying protein proteomic profiles, many scientists stop at the stage of two-dimensional electrophoregrams sometimes even without ideas about the future prospects of using modern instruments and bioinformation resources to confirm or refute their hypotheses, and sometimes just to identify. This overview shows the chain of actions that allows going from profiling proteins in the gel to a specific interpretation of the results. Studies in this field have enabled formulating and significantly expanding the approaches to the identification and quantification of protein markers of quality, functionality and safety of meat raw material (detection of falsification) in the finished meat products. Based on the obtained data, the information was systematized using bioinformatics techniques with creation of the unique Atlas «Proteomic profiles of farm animal meat proteins.»

1. Electronic resource. URL:http://web.expasy.org/docs/ swiss-prot_guideline.html/ UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot/SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (access date: 26.10.2016).

2. Zamyatnin, А.А. Fragments of food proteins — regulatory oligopeptides / А.А. Zamyatnin, О.L. Voronina // Biochemistry. — 2012. – V. 77. — № 5. — P. 622–632.

3. Zamyatnin, А.А. Brilliant world of proteins and peptides / А.А. Zamyatnin // Biology — 2002. — V. 25. — P. 8–13.

4. Proteomics — a step following genomics/ Anton Ivanov, STRF.ru Electronic resource.URL: http://old.strf.ru/material. aspx?CatalogId=352&d_no=11979#.WFln3lOLTIU (access date: 26.10.2016)

5. Sun, H. Proteomic and bioinformatic analysis of differentially expressed proteins in denervated skeletal muscle / H. Sun, J. Qiu, Y. Chen et al. // Int. J. Mol. Med. — 2014. — V. 33. — № 6. — P. 1586–1596.

6. Weckwerth, W. Metabolomics: an integral technique in systems biology // Bioanalysis. — 2010. — V. 2. — Р. 829–836.

7. Venter, C.J. The Sequence of the Human Genome / C.J. Venter, M.D. Adams, E.W. Myers et al. // Science. — 2001. — V. 291. — P. 1304–1351.

8. Kovalev, L.I. Proteomic study of proteins in the pork and pork product samples / Kovalev L.I., Shishkin S.S., Kovaleva М.А., Ivanov А.V., Vostrikova N.L., Chernukha I.M.// All About Meat . — 2013. — № 3. — P. 32–34.

9. Novel markers for tying-up in horses by proteomics analysis of equine muscle biopsies / F.G. Bouwman, M.M van Ginneken, J.H. van der Kolk, E.C. Mariman // Comp BiochemPhysiol Part D Genomics Proteomics. — 2010. — V. 5 — № 2. — Р. 178–183. DOI: 10.1016/j.cbd.2010.03.009.

10. Shibata, M. Differetional expression of the skeletal muscle proteome in grazed cattle / M. Shibata, K. Matsumoto, M. Oe et al. // J. anim. Sci. — 2009. — V. 87. — № 8. — P. 2700–2708.

11. The human plasma proteome: a nonredundant list developed by combination of four separate sources / N.L. Anderson, M. Polanski, R. Pieper, et al. // Mol. Cell Proteomics. — 2004. — V. 3. — № 4. — P. 311–326.

12. Application of proteomic technologies for analysis of muscle proteins from farm animal used in the meat industry (a review) / S.S. Shishkin, L.I. Kovalev, М.А. Kovaleva // Applied biotechnology and microbiology. — 2014. — № 5. — P. 453–465.

13. Shishkin S.S., Kovaleva M.A., Eryomina L.S., Lisitskaya K.V., Kovalev LI. Proteomic Approaches for the Study of Transgelins as Tumor-associated Proteins and Potential Biomarkers. // Current Proteomics. — 2013. — V. 10. — № 2. — Р. 165–178