Publication: Predicted sub-populations in a marine shrimp proteome as revealed by combined EST and cDNA data from multiple Penaeus species
1
Issued Date
2010-11-15
Resource Type
ISSN
17560500
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-78149347750
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Research Notes. Vol.3, (2010)
Suggested Citation
Pimlapas Leekitcharoenphon, Udon Taweemuang, Prasit Palittapongarnpim, Rattanawadee Kotewong, Thararat Supasiri, Burachai Sonthayanon Predicted sub-populations in a marine shrimp proteome as revealed by combined EST and cDNA data from multiple Penaeus species. BMC Research Notes. Vol.3, (2010). doi:10.1186/1756-0500-3-295 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/28598
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Predicted sub-populations in a marine shrimp proteome as revealed by combined EST and cDNA data from multiple Penaeus species
Abstract
Background. Many species of marine shrimp in the Family Penaeidae, viz. Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei, Penaeus monodon, Penaeus (Fenneropenaeus) chinensis, and Penaeus (Marsupenaeus) japonicus, are animals of economic importance in the aquaculture industry. Yet information about their DNA and protein sequences is lacking. In order to predict their collective proteome, we combined over 270,000 available EST and cDNA sequences from the 4 shrimp species with all protein sequences of Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. EST data from 4 other crustaceans, the crab Carcinus maenas, the lobster Homarus americanus (Decapoda), the water flea Daphnia pulex, and the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana were also used. Findings. Similarity searches from EST collections of the 4 shrimp species matched 64% of the protein sequences of the fruit fly, but only 45% of nematode proteins, indicating that the shrimp proteome content is more similar to that of an insect than a nematode. Combined results with 4 additional non-shrimp crustaceans increased matching to 78% of fruit fly and 56% of nematode proteins, suggesting that present shrimp EST collections still lack sequences for many conserved crustacean proteins. Analysis of matching data revealed the presence of 4 EST groups from shrimp, namely sequences for proteins that are both fruit fly-like and nematode-like, fruit fly-like only, nematode-like only, and non-matching. Gene ontology profiles of proteins for the 3 matching EST groups were analyzed. For non-matching ESTs, a small fraction matched protein sequences from other species in the UniProt database, including other crustacean-specific proteins. Conclusions. Shrimp ESTs indicated that the shrimp proteome is comprised of sub-populations of proteins similar to those common to both insect and nematode models, those present specifically in either model, or neither. Combining small EST collections from related species to compensate for their small size allowed prediction of conserved expressed protein components encoded by their uncharacterized genomes. The organized data should be useful for transferring annotation data from model species into shrimp data and for further studies on shrimp proteins with particular functions or groups. © 2010 Sonthayanon et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.