Subscriber access provided by HACETTEPE UNIVERSITESI KUTUPHANESI
Article
Analysis of longissimus thoracis protein expression associated with variation in carcass quality grade and marbling of beef cattle raised in the pacific northwestern US. Kara J Thornton, Kalyan C. Chapalamadugu, Eric M. Eldridge, and Gordon K. Murdoch J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02795 • Publication Date (Web): 24 Jan 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 24, 2017
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1
TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP
2
Title. Analysis of longissimus thoracis protein expression associated with variation in carcass
3
quality grade and marbling of beef cattle raised in the pacific northwestern US.
4
Kara J. Thorntonab, Kalyan C. Chapalamadugub, Eric M. Eldredgeb, Gordon K. Murdochb*
5
a
6
4815 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322
7
b
8
Moscow, Idaho 83844-2330
9
*Corresponding author:
[email protected], 309 Ag/Biotechnology, University of Idaho,
10
Current address: Department of Animal, Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, Utah State University,
Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences. University of Idaho, 606 Rayburn Street
Moscow, Idaho. 83844-2330
1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 2 of 36
11
ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS
12
Longissimus thoracis (LD) samples from 500 cattle were screened for protein expression
13
differences relative to carcass quality grade. The LD of the top 5% (low prime and high choice,
14
HQ) and bottom 5% (low select, LQ) carcasses were analyzed using two-dimensional difference
15
gel electrophoresis and western blot. Following initial screening, 11 candidate proteins were
16
selected for Western blot analyses. Differentially expressed proteins were clustered into 4
17
groups: (1) heat shock proteins and oxidative protection, (2) sarcomeric proteins: muscle
18
maturity and fiber type, (3) metabolism and energetics and (4) miscellaneous proteins. Proteins
19
from groups 1 and 2 were greater in HQ carcasses. Alternatively, increased quantities of proteins
20
from group 3 were observed in LQ carcasses. Proteomic differences provide insights into
21
pathways contributing to carcass quality grade. A deeper understanding of the physiological
22
pathways involved in carcass quality grade development may allow producers to employ
23
production practices that improve quality grade.
24
Keywords. bovine, carcass quality grade, heat shock proteins, proteolysis, proteome
2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 36
25 26
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
INTRODUCTION Harvested beef cattle exhibit variation in USDA carcass quality grade, despite being
27
raised under similar conditions.1 Marbling of the longissimus thoracis (LD) at the 12th rib and
28
degree of maturity are the main factors used to establish carcass quality grade. Carcass quality
29
grade is of utmost importance to producers as this value, along with hot carcass weight,
30
determines the payout for a carcass. Currently, the underlying molecular mechanisms responsible
31
for this variation in carcass quality grade are inadequately understood. Meat quality is a complex
32
trait determined by structural and chemical characteristics of the extracellular connective tissue
33
network, intramuscular fat deposition, myofiber size and type, and the interactions between the
34
heterogeneous populations of cells which comprise skeletal muscle tissue and the substrates that
35
they store.2 Consequently, the complexity of both skeletal muscle tissue and the factors which
36
determine meat quality lend to a current lack of knowledge regarding the cellular mechanism(s)
37
responsible for the observed variation in carcass quality grade. Carcass quality grade is
38
correlated with both consumer satisfaction and meat tenderness.3 Inconsistencies in beef carcass
39
quality grade are undesirable as there is generally an improved market for higher quality grade
40
beef at least up to and including choice.4 Although undesirable, variation in carcass quality grade
41
continues to be a problem while causative physiological factors in cattle raised under similar
42
management practices are poorly understood.
43
Many cellular processes contribute to quality grade of meat products; skeletal muscle
44
itself is heterogeneous where proportions of different cell types and their interactions may differ
45
within this tissue. Past research relating to beef quality has focused on genomic studies involving
46
the use of quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) analyses, microarray, and
47
RNA sequencing as well as development of quantitative trait loci (QTL) for genes associated
3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 4 of 36
48
with marbling and tenderness in beef.5 However, genomic studies are limited in their capacity to
49
elucidate underlying molecular mechanisms responsible for meat quality, as the genome is
50
further from the phenotype than the proteome. Therefore, studies analyzing protein expression
51
can complement current genomic studies and provide an improved understanding of the complex
52
phenotype related to meat quality. The application of proteomics in meat science has been
53
employed with the aim of achieving a better understanding of meat quality.6 Previous proteome
54
analyses of porcine and beef muscle have focused on differences in meat quality related to
55
electrical stimulation,7 post-mortem storage,8 skeletal muscle hypertrophy,9 skeletal muscle
56
growth processes,10 finishing diet,11 ageing,7 post-mortem muscle metabolism,12 differences in
57
muscle type,13 tenderness differences based on Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) values,14
58
accumulation of subcutaneous adipose,15 intramuscular fat content,16 muscle exudate protein17
59
and meat color.18 Further, proteomic differences in high and low quality grade beef in Korean
60
native cattle have been investigated.19 However, no proteomic screening has compared and
61
reported differences in the LD of high and low quality beef based on carcass quality grade alone
62
in typical North American cattle breeds.
63
This study analyzed differences in the LD of high vs. low quality graded beef carcasses
64
using two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) and matrix-assisted laser
65
desorption/ionization (MALDI) time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometry as a screening tool
66
which identified 11 candidate proteins of interest. Candidate proteins were then subsequently
67
evaluated and quantified using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
68
(PAGE) and Western blot analyses of individual animal samples. The objectives of this study
69
was to use an unbiased approach to identify proteins that are differentially expressed in the LD of
70
typical North American raised cattle relative to industry accessed carcass quality grade.
4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
71
MATERIAL AND METHODS
72
Sample Collection
73
Samples were obtained from the LD between the 11th and 12th rib. The LD muscle was
74
sampled from 500 randomly selected cattle raised in the Pacific Northwestern Unites States and
75
Canada and harvested at Washington Beef in Toppenish, WA. All samples were collected on the
76
same day. Approximately 24 h after slaughter, carcasses were ribbed and graded, following plant
77
protocol. Samples were collected from both steer and heifer carcasses. Approximately 5 g LD
78
core samples were obtained within 30 min of exsanguination from the left side of the carcass
79
using a homemade coring device. Immediately following collection, samples were snap frozen
80
and transported in liquid nitrogen back to Moscow, ID and stored at -80°C until further
81
preparation and analysis was performed. The cattle originated from four different feeding
82
facilities in the Pacific Northwestern United States and Canada. All cattle were fed following
83
typical industry protocols in this area, however no specific diet information is available for these
84
animals. Genetic relatedness was not characterized but was not expected to be greater than
85
average for a typical mixed cattle operation in the US.
86
Determination of Samples for Analyses
87
Carcass and quality grade data, determined by camera, of the sampled cattle were
88
received from Washington Beef. The top 5% carcass quality grade high (low prime, high choice;
89
HQ) and the bottom 5%, carcass quality grade low (low select; LQ) samples were chosen based
90
on their carcass quality grade, with marbling score being the value taken most into consideration.
91
Carcass grade information was obtained from Washington Beef via the VBG2000 Vision
92
Camera. An equal number of steers and heifers were chosen for initial proteomic screening
93
analyses; HQ steers (n = 12), LQ steers (n = 12), HQ heifers (n = 12) and LQ heifers (n = 12).
5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 6 of 36
94
While marbling score was the parameter taken most into consideration; care was taken to ensure
95
yield grades were balanced between the selected groups (p > 0.30) so that yield (lean growth)
96
was not the predominant factor in this study. The carcass data of those chosen for analyses can
97
be seen in Table 1. Carcasses that graded less than “select” or were “de-railed” during fabrication
98
processes were not included in any analyses.
99
Protein Extraction
100
Frozen LD muscle samples were ground in a super-cooled mortar and pestle under liquid
101
nitrogen. Care was taken to minimize subcutaneous adipose tissue contamination in the sample.
102
The ground sample consisted of both skeletal muscle and intramuscular adipose tissue. Total
103
protein was extracted using a modified protocol.20 In brief, between 50 and 70 mg of ground
104
tissue was transferred to 15µL/mg tissue total protein extraction buffer; 50 mM Tris HCl (pH =
105
7.52), 150 mM NaCl, 1mM ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), 1% Tergitol, 0.1% SDS
106
and 0.5% sodium deoxycholate. Immediately before use, phosphatase and protease inhibitor
107
cocktail tablets (Roche, Indianapolis, IN, USA) were added to the extraction buffer. Samples
108
were homogenized, using a Retsch Bead Homogenizer MM301 (Retsch, Newtown, PA, USA), 5
109
x 20 s at 25 Hz. Following homogenization, samples were placed on a rocking platform for 10
110
min at 4°C. All samples were centrifuged at 10,000 x g for 10 min at 4°C. The supernatant was
111
removed and stored at -80°C. Total protein was quantified using the Pierce® BSA Protein Assay
112
Kit (ThermoScientific, Waltham, MA, USA). A Wallac Victor 2 1420 plate reader (Perkin
113
Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) was used to quantify total protein.
114
Pooling of Samples for 2D-DIGE Protein Screening Analysis
115 116
The 2D-DIGE analysis was used as a screening tool to identify candidate proteins that contribute to the variability in carcass quality grade. Samples were pooled into four different
6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 7 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
117
groups, separated by both sex and carcass quality grade. The four pooled groups were as follows:
118
HQ steers, LQ steers, HQ heifers and LQ heifers. Each sample pool consisted of equal amounts
119
of protein from each of the 12 animals included in that group. A pool of all 48 samples was also
120
created, which was used as an internal standard for each of the 2D-DIGE gels.
121
2D-DIGE
122
Two 2D-DIGE gels were run, one consisting of pooled samples from the steers and the
123
other from the heifers; gels can be seen in Figure 1. Each gel included the pooled samples as well
124
as an internal standard consisting of a protein pool from all samples analyzed and was used for
125
normalization during analysis. In brief, protein samples were suspended in 2D-DIGE cell lysis
126
buffer (30 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.8, containing 7 M urea, 2 M thiourea and 4% 3-(3-
127
cholamidopropyl) dimethylammonio-1-propanesulfonate (CHAPS) (Applied Biomics, Inc.
128
Hayward, CA, USA). Protein concentration was measured using the Bio-Rad protein assay
129
method (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Each sample was labeled by adding 30 µg of protein and
130
mixing with 1.0 µL of diluted CyDye and kept in the dark on ice for 30 min. The labeling
131
reaction was stopped by adding 1.0 µL of 10 mM lysine to each sample and incubating in the
132
dark on ice for an additional 15 min. The labeled samples were then mixed together. Two times
133
2D-DIGE sample buffer (8 M urea, 4% CHAPS, 20 milligrams/milliliter DTT, 2% pharmalytes
134
and trace amount of bromophenol blue), 100 uL de-streak solution and rehydration buffer (7 M
135
urea, 2 M thiourea, 4% CHAPS, 20 mg/mL DTT, 1% pharmalytes and trace amount of
136
bromophenol blue) were added to the labeling mix to bring the total volume to 250 µL. Samples
137
were mixed and centrifuged before loading into the strip holder. After loading the labeled
138
samples, isoelectric focusing (IEF) (pH 3-10 linear) was run following the protocol provided by
139
GE Healthcare (GE Healthcare, Fairfield, CT, USA). Upon finishing the IEF, the immobilized
7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 8 of 36
140
pH gradient (IPG) strips were incubated in freshly made equilibration buffer-1 (50 mM Tris-HCl,
141
pH 8.8, containing 6 M urea, 30% glycerol, 2% SDS, trace amount of bromophenol blue and 10
142
milligrams/milliliter DTT) for 15 min with gentle shaking. The strips were rinsed in freshly
143
made equilibration buffer-2 (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.8, containing 6 M urea, 30% glycerol, 2%
144
SDS, trace amount of bromophenol blue and 45 mg/mL iodoacetamide) for 10 min with gentle
145
shaking. Next the IPG strips were rinsed in the SDS-gel running buffer before transferring onto
146
12% SDS-gels. The SDS-gels were run at 15oC until the dye front ran out of the gels. Gel images
147
were scanned immediately following the SDS-PAGE using Typhoon TRIO (GE Healthcare).
148
The scanned images were analyzed by Image Quant software (version 6.0, GE Healthcare),
149
followed by in-gel analysis using DeCyder software version 6.5 (GE Healthcare). The fold
150
change of the protein expression levels was obtained from in-gel DeCyder analysis (Applied
151
Biomics).
152
Mass Spectrometry
153
Mass spectrometry for spot identification was performed by Applied Biomics (Applied
154
Biomics). Spots that showed at least a 1.25 fold difference between high and low quality grade
155
groups in either the heifer or the steer samples were picked up by Ettan Spot Picker (GE
156
Healthcare) based on the in-gel analysis and spot picking design by DeCyder software. The gel
157
spots were washed, and digested in-gel with modified porcine trypsin protease (Promega,
158
Madison, WI, USA). The digested tryptic peptides were desalted using a Zip-tip C18 (Millipore).
159
Peptides were eluted from the Zip-tip with 0.5 µL of matrix solution (α-cyano-4-
160
hydroxycinnamic acid (5 mg/mL in 50% acetonitrile, 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid, 25 mM
161
ammonium bicarbonate) and spotted on a MALDI plate. MALDI- TOF MS and TOF/TOF
162
tandem MS/MS were performed on AB SCIEX TOF/TOF™ 5800 System (AB SCIEX,
8 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
163
Framingham, MA, USA). MALDI-TOF mass spectra were acquired in reflectron positive ion
164
mode, averaging 4000 laser shots per spectrum. TOF/TOF tandem MS fragmentation spectra
165
were acquired for each sample, averaging 4000 laser shots per fragmentation spectrum on each
166
of the 7-10 most abundant ions present in each sample (excluding trypsin autolytic peptides and
167
other known background ions). Both of the resulting peptide mass and the associated
168
fragmentation spectra were submitted to GPS Explorer workstation equipped with MASCOT
169
search engine (Matrix science) to search the database of National Center for Biotechnology
170
Information non-redundant (NCBInr). Searches were performed without constraining protein
171
molecular weight or isoelectric point, with variable carbamidomethylation of cysteine and
172
oxidation of methionine residues, and with one missed cleavage also allowed in the search
173
parameters. Candidates with either; protein score confidence interval % (C.I.) or ion C.I.%
174
greater than 95 were considered significant. Candidates with a protein score C.I.% less than 95
175
were not included in the results.
176
Western Blotting
177
Western blot analysis on individual animals was completed for 11 differentially
178
expressed proteins according to the 2D-DIGE screening. All Western blot analysis was
179
performed on individual animal samples to verify the differences identified in the “pooled” 2D-
180
DIGE. Specifications regarding the antibodies are presented in Table 1S. Ten individual samples
181
were run on each gel for each protein analyzed. A total of 5 gels for each of the 11 proteins
182
analyzed were utilized to analyze individual protein expression for each of the 11 proteins
183
analyzed via Western blot analysis. Protein samples were added to Laemmli sample buffer (Bio-
184
Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) at a ratio of 1:1 and heated at 95°C for 7 min prior to separation.
185
Proteins were separated using SDS-10% polyacrylamide gels. Electrophoresis was performed
9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 10 of 36
186
at120 V for 1 h at 4°C using a Bio-Rad Mini PROTEAN tetra cell gel box in running buffer
187
containing 25 mM Tris/ 192 mM glycine/ 0.1% (w/v) SDS. The proteins were then transferred to
188
an immobilidon-polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane using a Bio-Rad trans-blot apparatus
189
with a transfer buffer consisting of 20% (w/v) methanol/ 25 mM Tris/192mM glycine/0.05 (w/v)
190
SDS. Samples were transferred at 4°C for 90 min at 100 V. After transfer, membranes were
191
stained with Ponceau-S (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) for 30 min according to the
192
manufacturer’s protocol. Images of Ponceau-S stained membranes were taken using a Fluor-S
193
Multi Imager (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Ponceau-S stain was removed as per the
194
manufacturer’s protocol. Membranes were then blocked in a 5% (w/v) non-fat milk (NFM) and
195
Tris buffered saline (100 mM Tris-HCl, 0.13 M NaCl and 0.0027 M KCl) (TBS) solution for 45
196
min at room temperature. Membranes were incubated with primary antibodies in 5% NFM-TBS
197
solution overnight at 4°C, at the reported primary antibody dilutions (Table 1S). Membranes
198
were washed 3 x 10 min each in TBS with 0.05% Tween 20 (TBST) followed by incubation with
199
secondary antibodies for 2 h at room temperature, three separate secondary antibodies
200
conjugated with horseradish peroxidase were used; mouse, goat and rabbit (Pierce, Waltham,
201
MA, USA) (Table 1S). Membranes were again washed 4 x 5 min each in TBST at room
202
temperature followed by a wash in TBS for 5 min. Western Lightning ECL substrate
203
(PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA) was used to detect the peroxidase and images were
204
developed using a Kodax X-OMAT 100A processor (Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA). Radiograph
205
images were taken using a Fluor-S multi-imager (Bio-Rad, USA). Relative densitometric values
206
were determined using Quantity One software (Bio-Rad, USA). Western blot data were
207
normalized in 2 ways; (1) equal amounts of protein were loaded to each well (2) relative
208
densitometric values were normalized to a common band (~45kDa) in the Ponceau-S stained
10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
209
image via a ratio. Western blots were run in duplicate; a coefficient of variation of less than 8%
210
between gels was considered acceptable to ensure there was limited variation between duplicate
211
gels.
212
Statistical Analysis
213
Fold change differences in the 2D-DIGE gels were compared using DeCyder software.
214
High and low quality carcass samples were considered to be differentially expressed at a fold
215
change value of at least 1.25 fold in either the heifer or the steer samples. This fold change value
216
was adopted to ensure detection of the proteins that were expressed differentially by at least
217
25%. All data from 2D-DIGE analyses compared differences between pooled samples. Samples
218
of high and low carcass quality grade were compared in both the steers and the heifers, however
219
there were no comparisons made between the two sexes. The PROC mixed function of SAS was
220
used to statistically analyze the Western blot data; quality grade was included as a fixed variable
221
and individual animal was included as a random variable (Statistical Analysis Software version
222
9.2, Cary, NC, USA). Statistical analyses were performed on samples with an N=24 and an
223
N=48. These two analyses were performed because in the N=24 analyses, the samples from the
224
two groups are more divergent from one another in carcass quality grade as they represent the
225
more extreme samples (either HQ or LQ) from the random population average. Whereas in the
226
other analysis (N=48) the samples are less divergent in carcass quality but the analyses will have
227
more power due to greater sample size. P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
228
P-values ≤ 0.10 were considered trends in the data.
229
RESULTS
230
2D-DIGE Proteomic Analysis
11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
231
Page 12 of 36
Proteomic screening of the LD was performed on four different groups of pooled
232
samples; HQ steers, LQ steers, HQ heifers and LQ heifers. Proteomes of high and low carcass
233
quality graded animals were compared within sexes. The 2D-DIGE analysis utilized pooled
234
samples as it served only as a screening tool to determine candidate proteins for Western blot
235
analysis of expression differences in individual samples. Validation using Western blot analysis
236
of individual samples confirmed many of the differences observed in the 2D-DIGE proteomic
237
analyses.
238
Seventy-seven distinct protein spots, representing 45 unique proteins were found to be
239
differentially expressed in the LD of either or both of the pooled heifer and steer samples (Table
240
2). Subsequently, these proteins were separated for simplification of interpretation into four
241
groups based upon known functions: (1) heat shock proteins and proteins involved in oxidative
242
protection, (2) sarcomeric proteins: muscle maturity and fiber type, (3) proteins of importance in
243
metabolism and energetics and (4) miscellaneous proteins.
244
Western blot analyses of proteins from the heat shock (HSP) and oxidative protection
245
classification revealed that the LD from both LQ steer and heifer carcasses contained
246
significantly more heat shock protein beta-1 (HSPB1), alpha-crystallin B chain (CRYAB) and
247
protein DJ-1 (PARK7).
248
In the sarcomeric proteins related to both muscle maturity and fiber type, proteins that
249
regulate structure and function of the contractile apparatus were differentially expressed between
250
HQ and LQ carcass LD muscle in both the steers and the heifers. The HQ steers expressed more
251
myosin heavy chain 1 (MYH1), α-actin, myosin light chain 1/3, myosin light chain 6B,
252
tropomyosin (TPM), myosin regulatory light chain 2 and myosin light chain 1 when compared to
253
the LQ steer LD samples. However, expression of isoforms of myosin-binding protein C, myosin
12 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
254
light chain 1/3, and myosin regulatory light chain 2 were expressed significantly higher in the
255
LD of LQ steer carcasses as compared to HQ steer carcasses. The HQ heifers expressed
256
significantly more of at least one of the identified isoforms of MYH1, myosin regulatory light
257
chain 2 and myosin light chain 1 when compared to LQ heifer carcasses. One of the isoforms of
258
myosin-binding protein C, alpha actin, TPM, troponin T, myosin light chain 1/3, and myosin
259
regulatory light chain 2 were expressed significantly more in the LD of LQ heifers as compared
260
to HQ heifers.
261
Our 2D-DIGE/MS proteomic analysis revealed a number of differentially expressed
262
proteins between both the HQ and LQ carcass quality graded steers and heifers that are known to
263
function in the metabolism and energetics of skeletal muscle. Most of the identified proteins
264
were expressed in greater quantity in the HQ samples than LQ samples in both the heifer and
265
steer carcasses. However, the LQ carcasses expressed greater amounts of adenosine
266
monophosphate deaminase 1 (AMPD1), phosphoglucomutase1, aldehyde dehydrogenase 1,
267
carbonic anhydrase 3 and fatty acid binding protein 3 (FABP3) as compared to the LQ steer
268
carcasses. All other proteins identified by 2D-DIGE proteomic analysis to be significantly
269
different between HQ and LQ steers grouped as being involved in metabolism and energetic of
270
skeletal muscle demonstrated increased expression in the HQ carcasses. Similar to what was
271
found in the steers, differential expression was greater in the LD of the HQ heifers in proteins
272
grouped as being involved in metabolism and skeletal muscle energetics.
273
The last group of proteins identified to be differentially expressed in the LD between high
274
and low quality carcasses was categorized as “miscellaneous” representing all other proteins
275
outside of the other three categories. The proteins serotransferrin precursor, and majority of the
276
identified isoforms of myoglobin and hemoglobin were found to be significantly more abundant
13 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 14 of 36
277
in HQ steer carcasses as compared to LQ steer carcasses. However, albumin and a few isoforms
278
of the myoglobin protein were in greater abundance in LQ steer carcasses. The HQ heifer
279
carcasses expressed proportionally more albumin, and most of the isoforms of myoglobin and
280
hemoglobin when compared to the LQ heifer carcasses. The serotransferrin precursor and a few
281
of the isoforms of both hemoglobin and myoglobin were expressed in greater abundance in the
282
LQ heifer carcasses as compared to the HQ heifer carcasses.
283
Proteins validated with Western blot analysis were chosen based on two different criteria:
284
(1) those that exhibited the largest fold change values after 2D-DIGE analysis of pooled samples
285
(2) those perceived as having the most physiological relevance to differences in carcass quality
286
grade based upon known function.
287
Western Blot Analysis
288
Subsequent quantification of 11 proteins identified by the 2D-DIGE proteomic and MS
289
screening to be differentially expressed in the LD between the HQ and LQ samples in either the
290
steers or the heifers was performed using antibody specific Western blotting (Figure 2). In both
291
the steers and the heifers, densitometric values were analyzed with an N=24 and an N=48 to
292
determine differences in samples more extreme in their quality grade. Analysis of an N=24
293
demonstrated that HQ heifer carcasses expressed more (p = 0.03) AMPD1 and less (p = 0.04)
294
sarcomeric mitochondrial creatine kinase (SMTCK) when compared to LQ heifer carcasses
295
(Table 3). When an N=48 was analyzed similar results were observed. When compared to LQ
296
heifer carcasses, the HQ heifer carcasses expressed more AMPD1 (p = 0.005) and less TPM (p =
297
0.05) and SMTCK (p = 0.01). Results of Western blot analyses validated differences observed in
298
2D-DIGE/MS analysis in 2 and 3 of the proteins at N=24 and N=48, respectively, in samples
299
obtained from heifers.
14 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 36
300
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Western blot analysis of N=24 and N=48 LD samples of HQ vs. LQ steer carcasses
301
validated 7 of the differentially expressed proteins identified through 2D-DIGE/MS analysis
302
(Figure 3). In an N=24 HQ steer carcasses expressed more AMPD1 (p = 0.05) and HSPB1 (p =
303
0.03) as well as less beta enolase (ENO3) (p = 0.006), CA3 (p = 0.02), GPD1 (p = 0.04), TPI (p
304
= 0.01) and TPM (p = 0.02) when compared with LQ steer carcasses. The HQ steer carcasses
305
also tended to express low quantities of MYH1 (p = 0.09) and PARK7 (p = 0.08) than LQ steer
306
carcasses. In an N=48, HQ steer carcasses expressed lower amounts of CA3 (p = 0.0002), ENO3
307
(p < 0.0001), GPD1 (p = 0.04), PARK7 (p = 0.05), TPI (p = 0.001) and TPM (p = 0.0003) than
308
LQ steer carcasses. LD samples from HQ steer carcasses also tended to have lower quantities of
309
SMTCK (p = 0.10), FABP3 (p = 0.06), and MYH1 (p = 0.08). However, the expression of
310
FABP3 and MYH1 did not meet the confidence level to confirm differences ascertained by 2D-
311
DIGE/MS analyses of the pooled sample sets.
312
DISCUSSION
313
LD samples represent a heterogeneous cell population that is present within skeletal
314
muscle tissue comprised of 3 main cell types: skeletal muscle cells, intramuscular adipocytes and
315
fibroblasts. As USDA carcass quality grade/intramuscular fat content was the main factor used to
316
determine sample grouping as high vs. low quality carcass merit, the proportions of different cell
317
types vary in these samples. For instance, samples from high quality carcasses presumably have
318
more mature adipocytes than low quality carcass samples as higher quality grade meat has more
319
intramuscular fat. However the marketable product; meat, embodies this complexity and
320
therefore we believe that this total proteomic approach is more advantageous than
321
disadvantageous. Our proteomic and Western blot analyses represents a snapshot of the tissue as
322
a whole, and provides the opportunity to identify some of the underlying physiological
15 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 16 of 36
323
mechanisms that may explain meat quality regardless of which cell type(s) are responsible. In
324
fact, this study identified several proteins that are divergently expressed, in HQ vs LQ steers and
325
heifers.
326
HSPs and oxidative protection
327
The present study found that PARK7, a cytosolic chaperone protein that protects against
328
oxidative stress and cell death,21 exhibited increased expression in the LD muscle of LQ steers as
329
compared to LQ steers. PARK7 was not differentially expressed in the LD samples from heifers.
330
To date, no previous studies have analyzed the effects of oxidation in samples obtained from
331
carcasses with divergent carcass quality grade as the main factor. However, it is accepted that
332
oxidative stress is an important process that occurs during ageing and has known impacts on end-
333
product quality. Herein, we report that these same oxidative processes may play a role in
334
determination of carcass quality grade.
335
HSP are essential for normal cell function, and play a role in stress resistance.22, 23
336
HSPB1 exhibited higher expression in the LD of HQ steers when compared to LQ steers. There
337
were no significant differences in HSPB1 expression observed in the heifer samples. To date, no
338
other studies have analyzed the expression of small HSP in relation to carcass quality grade. It
339
has been reported that HSPB1 expression is negatively correlated with intramuscular fat content
340
in the LD of Korean cattle.24 The results of the previous study do not agree with the findings of
341
the present study and likely reflect intrinsic breed and production differences. The HQ samples
342
analyzed in the present study had a significantly higher marbling score when compared to the LQ
343
samples, indicating there was more intramuscular fat in the HQ samples than the LQ samples.
344
Additional research will elucidate the mechanism through which proteins involved in oxidative
16 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
345
processes and stress affect carcass quality grade and the authors believe that this represents an
346
exciting new opportunity supported by our proteomic observations.
347
Sarcomeric proteins: muscle maturity and fiber type
348
Our results indicate that both MYH1 and TPM are expressed at higher quantities in the
349
LD of LQ steer as compared to HQ steers. Furthermore, LD samples from heifers showed the
350
same result in TPM expression but not MYH1 expression. These data indicate that there is a
351
greater quantity of proteins that function in muscle maturity and fiber type determination in the
352
HQ carcass samples at the time of harvest, although there was no difference in yield grade
353
between HQ and LQ carcasses. The heterogeneous populations of cells within the samples may
354
have dramatically influenced the expression of these proteins as the HQ carcass samples likely
355
have more intramuscular adipocytes whereas LQ carcass samples likely consisted of fewer
356
adipocytes and more muscle cells which may have skewed the quantifications of these proteins.
357
This explanation is supported by our observation that LQ carcass samples within both the steers
358
and heifers expressed more TPM and MYH1 in Western blot analysis. However, to date, no
359
studies have analyzed proteomic differences in samples obtained from carcasses divergent in
360
quality grade. Future research will determine how distribution of sarcomeric proteins at the time
361
of harvest may impact carcass quality grade.
362
Metabolism and energetics
363
We report that AMPD1 protein is expressed in greater amounts in HQ steers and heifers
364
as compared to LQ steers and heifers. This is the first such report linking the expression of this
365
protein to the protein expression in the LD muscle in cattle based on carcass quality grade. This
366
may suggest that HQ animals have improved energy utilization with respect to adenosine
367
monophosphate metabolism through conversion to inositol monophosphate.
17 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 18 of 36
368
In addition, the present study found that CA3, ENO3, GPD1 and TPI have greater
369
expression in the LQ steer samples as compared to the HQ steer LD samples. In addition, all 4 of
370
these proteins showed similar trends in increased expression in the LQ heifers when compared to
371
the HQ heifers, but these data were not significantly different. However, SMTCK was expressed
372
at a significantly higher level in HQ heifers as compared to LQ heifers. SMTCK expression
373
exhibited the same trend in HQ steer samples but only demonstrated a tendency towards
374
significance. To our knowledge, no other studies have analyzed these proteins immediately post-
375
harvest; however many other studies have analyzed changes in the abundance of these proteins
376
during the post-mortem ageing process. Further, several studies have suggested that an increase
377
in glycolytic enzymes, such as ENO3, GPD1, SMTCK, and TPI, may enhance tenderness of the
378
end product.12, 25, 26 However, tenderness was not measured in the present study and as such, we
379
can only hypothesize how these findings may relate to improvements in carcass quality grade
380
and tenderness.
381
Summary
382
Beef quality is a complex trait that involves the integration of many different factors
383
including the structure of the muscle, metabolism within the muscle and intramuscular fat
384
deposition. Proteomic studies are an effective tool to study differential expression of many
385
different proteins, in an unbiased manner that may govern meat quality. This may facilitate the
386
elucidation of the complex mechanisms involved in determining carcass and meat quality.
387
Differential expression of the LD proteome was examined in beef cattle with differing
388
carcass quality grades. 2D-DIGE proteomic techniques were utilized to identify differentially
389
expressed candidate proteins. Western blot analyses on individual samples indicate protein
390
expression differences in HSPs and oxidative stress proteins, sarcomeric proteins involved in
18 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 19 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
391
muscle maturity and fiber type, proteins involved in the metabolism and energetics of muscle as
392
well as some proteins potentially related to vascularization. Expression of both small HSP and
393
proteins involved in oxidative stress have been reported to influence end-product eating quality,
394
however, this is the first study that demonstrates that expression of these proteins is also related
395
to carcass quality grade. Additionally, many metabolic enzymes and stress proteins increase in
396
skeletal muscle after slaughter, however this process depends upon the myofibrillar proteins
397
present as well as fiber type proportions within skeletal muscle.12 This study confirms that
398
despite being raised under similar conditions, cattle exhibit differences in their quality grade.
399
Some of these differences may be due to differential proteome expression. Beef cattle may have
400
a unique skeletal muscle proteomic “fingerprint” that plays a role in the determination of their
401
quality grade, and thus ultimately impacts both producers and consumers.
402
The proteomic differences we report provide researchers with greater insight into the
403
molecular pathways contributing to carcass quality grade and marbling.
404
ABBREVIATIONS USED
405
LD – longissimus thoracis
406
LQ – low quality carcass
407
HQ – high quality carcass
408
qRT-PCR - quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction
409
QTL – quantitative trait loci
410
WBSF – Warner-Bratzler shear force
411
2D-DIGE - two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis
412
MALDI – matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization
413
TOF – time-of-flight
19 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 20 of 36
414
SDS – sodium dodecyl sulfate
415
PAGE – polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
416
EDTA - ethylenediaminetetraacetic
417
CHAPS - 3-(3-cholamidopropyl) dimethylammonio-1-propanesulfonate
418
IEF - isoelectric focusing
419
IPG - immobilized pH gradient
420
PVDF - immobilidon-poly-vinylidene fluoride
421
TBS - Tris buffered saline
422
NFM – nonfat milk
423
TBST - TBS with 0.05% Tween 20
424
HSP – heat shock protein
425
HSPB1 - heat shock protein beta-1
426
CRYAB – alpha-crystallin B chain
427
PARK7 – protein DJ-1
428
MYH! – myosin heavy chain 1
429
TPM – tropomyosin
430
AMPD1 - adenosine monophosphate deaminase 1
431
FABP3 - Fatty acid binding protein 3
432
SMTCK - sarcomeric mitochondrial creatine kinase
433
ENO3 – beta enolase
434
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
435
The authors extend our appreciation to the individuals who helped collect our samples: Lyn Hill,
436
Brenda Murdoch and Katherine Hunt. Finally, we would like to thank Washington Beef in
20 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 21 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
437
Toppenish, WA for providing the carcasses for sampling, facilitating our tracking and sampling
438
of carcasses and providing the carcass grade data.
439
SUPPORTING INFORMATION DESCRIPTION
440
A table describing specific information about the primary and secondary antibodies can be found
441
in the supporting information.
442
FUNDING SOURCES
443
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this experiment by the Idaho Beef Council
444
through the Beef Checkoff program (IBC FY2010-BGK651) and the USDA Multi-State Hatch
445
Grant NC1184 through the University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station.
21 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 22 of 36
446
REFERENCES
447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489
1. Bouley, J.; Chambon, C.; Picard, B., Mapping of bovine skeletal muscle proteins using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. PROTEOMICS 2004, 4, 1811-1824. 2. Lawrie, R. A.; Ledward, D. A., Lawrie's Meat Science. 7 ed.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, 2006. 3. Jeremiah, L. E., A review of factors influencing consumption, selection and acceptability of meat purchases Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics 1982, 6, 137-154. 4. Boleman, S. J.; Boleman, S. L.; Miller, R. K.; Taylor, J. F.; Cross, H. R.; Wheeler, T. L.; Koohmaraie, M.; Shackelford, S. D.; Miller, M. F.; West, R. L.; Johnson, D. D.; Savell, J. W., Consumer evaluation of beef of known categories of tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 1521-4. 5. Hocquette, J. F.; Lehnert, S.; Barendse, W.; Cassar-Malek, I.; Picard, B., Recent advances in cattle functional genomics and their application to beef quality. animal 2007, 1, 159173. 6. Hollung, K.; Veiseth, E.; Jia, X.; Færgestad, E. M.; Hildrum, K. I., Application of proteomics to understand the molecular mechanisms behind meat quality. Meat Science 2007, 77, 97-104. 7. Bjarnadóttir, S. G.; Hollung, K.; Hoy, M.; Veiseth-Kent, E., Proteome changes in the insoluble protein fraction of bovine Longissimus dorsi muscle as a result of low-voltage electrical stimulation. Meat Science 2012, 89, 143-149. 8. Jia, X.; Ekman, M.; Grove, H.; Færgestad, E. M.; Aass, L.; Hildrum, K. I.; Hollung, K., Proteome changes in bovine longissimus thoracis muscle during the early postmortem storage period. J. Proteome Res. 2007, 6, 2720-2731. 9. Bouley, J.; Meunier, B.; Chambon, C.; De Smet, S.; Hocquette, J. F.; Picard, B., Proteomic analysis of bovine skeletal muscle hypertrophy. PROTEOMICS 2005, 5, 490-500. 10. Keady, S. M.; Kenny, D. A.; Ohlendieck, K.; Doyle, S.; Keane, M.; Waters, S. M., Proteomic profiling of bovine M. longissimus lumborum from Crossbred Aberdeen Angus and Belgian Blue sired steers varying in genetic merit for carcass weight. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 654665. 11. Shibata, M.; Matsumoto, K.; Oe, M.; Ohnishi-Kameyama, M.; Ojima, K.; Nakajima, I.; Muroya, S.; Chikuni, K., Differential expression of the skeletal muscle proteome in grazed cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 2700-2708. 12. Jia, X.; Hildrum, K. I.; Westad, F.; Kummen, E.; Aass, L.; Hollung, K., Changes in Enzymes Associated with Energy Metabolism during the Early Post Mortem Period in Longissimus Thoracis Bovine Muscle Analyzed by Proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 2006, 5, 17631769. 13. Jia, X.; Hollung, K.; Therkildsen, M.; Hildrum, K. I.; Bendixen, E., Proteome analysis of early post-mortem changes in two bovine muscle types: M. longissimus dorsi and M. semitendinosis. PROTEOMICS 2006, 6, 936-944. 14. Lametsch, R.; Karlsson, A.; Rosenvold, K.; Andersen, H. J.; Roepstorff, P.; Bendixen, E., Postmortem Proteome Changes of Porcine Muscle Related to Tenderness. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 6992-6997. 15. Zhao, Y. M.; Basu, U.; Dodson, M. V.; Basarb, J. A.; Guan, L. L., Proteome differences associated with fat accumulation in bovine subcutaneous adipose tissues. Proteome Sci 2010, 8, 14.
22 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 23 of 36
490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
16. Mao, Y.; Hopkins, D. L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, P.; Zhu, L.; Dong, P.; Liang, R.; Dai, J.; Wang, X.; Luo, X., Beef quality with different intramuscular fat content and proteomic analysis using isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitation of differentially expressed proteins. Meat Science 2016, 118, 96-102. 17. Bowker, B. C.; Eastridge, J. S.; Solomon, M. B., Measurement of muscle exudate protein composition as an indicator of beef tenderness. J. Food Sci. 2014, 79, C1292-C1297. 18. Joseph, P.; Suman, S. P.; Rentfrow, G.; Li, S.; Beach, C. M., Proteomics of musclespecific beef color stability. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 3196-3203. 19. Kim, N. K.; Cho, S.; Lee, S. H.; Park, H. R.; Lee, C. S.; Cho, Y. M.; Choy, Y. H.; Yoon, D.; Im, S. K.; Park, E. W., Proteins in longissimus muscle of Korean native cattle and their relationship to meat quality. Meat Science 2008, 80, 1068-1073. 20. Wei, J.; Kang, H. W.; Cohen, D. E., Thioesterase superfamily member 2 (Them2)/acylCoA thioesterase 13 (Acot13): a homotetrameric hotdog fold thioesterase with selectivity for long-chain fatty acyl-CoAs. Biochem. J. 2009, 421, 311-322. 21. Savitt, J. M.; Dawson, V. L.; Dawson, T. M., Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: molecules to medicine. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 2006, 116, 1744-1754. 22. Ozawa, S.; Mitsuhashi, T.; Mitsumoto, M.; Matsumoto, S.; Itoh, N.; Itagaki, K.; Kohno, Y.; Dohgo, T., The characteristics of muscle fiber types of longissimus thoracis muscle and their influences on the quantity and quality of meat from Japanese Black steers. Meat Science 2000, 54, 65-70. 23. Ryu, Y. C.; Kim, B. C., The relationship between muscle fiber characteristics, postmortem metabolic rate, and meat quality of pig longissimus dorsi muscle. Meat Science 2005, 71, 351-357. 24. Kim, N.-K.; Lim, D.; Lee, S.-H.; Cho, Y.-M.; Park, E.-W.; Lee, C.-S.; Shin, B.-S.; Kim, T.-H.; Yoon, D., Heat Shock Protein B1 and Its Regulator Genes Are Negatively Correlated with Intramuscular Fat Content in the Longissimus Thoracis Muscle of Hanwoo (Korean Cattle) Steers. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 5657-5664. 25. Guillemin, N.; Bonnet, M.; Jurie, C.; Picard, B., Functional analysis of beef tenderness. J. Proteomics 2011, 75, 352-365. 26. Picard, B.; Berri, C. c.; Lefaucheur, L.; Molette, C.; Sayd, T.; Terlouw, C., Skeletal muscle proteomics in livestock production. Briefings in Functional Genomics 2011, 9, 259-278.
23 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529
A
Page 24 of 36
FIGURES
B
24 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 25 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
530
Figure 1. Images from the 2D-DIGE gel analysis. Panel A represent the steers and panel B the
531
heifers. Pooled samples from high quality animals are Cy3 labeled and thus fluorescence is
532
green; pooled samples from low quality animals are Cy5 labeled and thus fluorescence is red. An
533
internal standard consisting of pooled protein from all animals in the study is also included,
534
fluorescence can be seen in yellow. The number next to each spot identifies that individual
535
protein, data regarding each protein spot can be seen in Table 2.
536
25 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
High Quality Carcass
|
Page 26 of 36
Low Quality Carcass
AMPD1
87 KDa High Quality Carcass
|
Low Quality Carcass 45 KDa
SMTCK
537 538
26 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 27 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
539
Figure 2. Figure 2.Representative Western blot images from the heifers. The representative
540
images above represent an n = 5 for each group, high or low quality. High quality carcass
541
samples are on the left whereas low quality carcass samples are on the right. The two
542
representative proteins above are adenosine monophosphate deaminase 1 (AMPD1) and
543
sarcomeric mitochondrial creatine kinase (SMTCK). The actual molecular weight of each of the
544
proteins can be found to the right of the image.
545
27 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
High Quality Carcass
|
Page 28 of 36
Low Quality Carcass 30 KDa
CA3 High Quality Carcass
|
Low Quality Carcass 45 KDa
ENO3 High Quality Carcass
|
Low Quality Carcass
GPD1
36 KDa High Quality Carcass
|
Low Quality Carcass 20 KDa
PARK7
546 547
28 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 29 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
548
Figure 3. Representative Western blot images from the steers. The representative images above
549
represent an n = 5 for each group, high or low carcass quality. High quality samples are on the
550
left whereas low quality carcass samples are on the right. The 4 representative proteins above are
551
carbonic anhydrase 3 (CA3), beta enolase (ENO3), glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate dehydrogenase
552
(GPD1), and parkinsons 7 (PARK7). The actual molecular weight of each of the proteins can be
553
found to the right of the image.
554
29 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
555 556
Page 30 of 36
TABLES Table 1. Carcass Data of Animals Selected for Analysis Steersb Low Quality
High Quality
pValued
High Quality
Heifersb Low Quality
pValued
HCW, kga
386.6 ± 13.6
353.6 ± 7.2
0.35
332.2 ± 11.8 309.7 ± 15.6
0.28
Yield Gradea
2.69 ± 0.22
2.27 ± 0.35
0.33
2.46 ± 0.23
2.10 ± 0.23
0.31
REA, cm2a
77.9 ± 3.7
84.3 ± 4.5
0.30
85.2 ± 2.7
82.3 ± 3.7
0.53
Marbling Scoreac
663.0 ± 12.2
697 ± 11.6
332.8 ± 7.2 < 0.0001
322.2 ± 4.6 < 0.0001
1 prime 4 prime 12 low 12 low select 11 choice 8 choice select a Values indicate average ± SEM; hot carcass weight (HCW); ribeye area (REA) b N=24 c Marbling score was provided by Washington Beef with marbling scores ranging from 300, indicating a slight degree of marbling and a quality grade of select, to 999, indicating an abundant degree of marbling and a quality grade of prime. d Difference between high and low quality carcasses, significant differences, p ≤ 0.05, are indicated in bold Quality Grade
557
30 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 31 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 2. 2D-DIGE Proteomics Results Spot Number
Protein Identification
Accession numbera
Heat Shock Proteins and Oxidative Protection heat shock protein beta-1 44 gi|71037405 heat shock protein beta-1 45 gi|71037405 protein DJ-1 52 gi|62751849 alpha-crystallin B chain 53 gi|27805849
Number Matched Peptidesc
Steers LQ/HQd
Heifers LQ/HQd
5.77 5.77 6.84 6.76
17 17 14 15
1.24 1.37 1.26 1.39
1.59 1.43 1.45 1.71
5.57
27
-1.27
-1.66
5.60
42
1.28
1.09
7.44
21
1.24
1.26
5.93
18
1.33
1.18
8.37
14
-1.26
-1.55
5.57
11
-1.44
-1.55
5.23
18
-1.29
1.18
5.31
19
-1.02
1.27
4.61 4.69
16 14
-1.04 -1.30
1.28 -1.11
4.64
15
-1.29
-1.13
5.71
11
1.13
1.36
6.42
10
1.20
1.74
7.74
12
-1.06
1.39
7.74
12
1.03
1.26
5.71
10
-1.09
1.46
4.96
13
2.39
2.10
4.96
14
1.55
1.44
4.96
13
-1.28
-1.05
5.40
15
-1.58
1.00
4.86
12
1.43
1.58
4.86
9
1.43
1.90
4.86
11
1.50
1.49
Protein Protein MW, Dab pIb 22665.4 22665.4 20022.6 20024.4
Cytoskeletal Proteins: Muscle maturity and fiber type 1 myosin-1 gi|41386691 222851.5 myosin-binding protein 2 gi|160425243 133896.5 C, slow-type myosin-binding protein 3 gi|133908641 127991.4 C, fast-type myosin-binding protein 4 gi|311258038 76122.0 C, fast-type TRIO and F-actin gi|114686389 240783.2 5 binding protein 7 myosin-1 gi|41386691 222851.5 Actin, alpha 1, skeletal 26 gi|134024776 41995.9 muscle actin, alpha skeletal 27 gi|27819614 42108.9 muscle 29 tropomyosin beta chain gi|73971292 31546.9 30 tropomyosin alpha chain gi|63252898 32688.7 skeletal muscle 31 gi|339956 30362.4 tropomyosin troponin T, slow skeletal 32 gi|41386697 31265.1 muscle troponin T fast skeletal 33 gi|21038996 31490.3 muscle type troponin T, fast skeletal 34 gi|47824864 29800.5 muscle troponin T, fast skeletal 36 gi|47824864 29800.5 muscle troponin T, slow skeletal 38 gi|41386697 31265.1 muscle myosin light chain 1/3, 42 gi|118601750 20918.6 skeletal muscle myosin light chain 1/3, 43 gi|118601750 20918.6 skeletal muscle myosin light chain 1/3, 50 gi|118601750 20918.6 skeletal muscle 51 myosin light chain 6B gi|115496556 23388.2 myosin regulatory light 56 gi|296478466 18892.4 chain 2, cardiac myosin regulatory light 57 gi|296478466 18892.4 chain 2, cardiac myosin regulatory light 58 gi|296478466 18892.4 chain 2, cardiac
31 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
62 63 69
myosin regulatory light chain 2, skeletal myosin regulatory light chain 2, skeletal myosin light chain 1, skeletal muscle
Skeletal muscle energetics AMP deaminase 1 9 pyruvate kinase, muscle 16 pyruvate kinase, muscle 18 Sarcomeric mitochondrial 24 creatine kinase adenylate kinase 55 isoenzyme 1 Aconitase 2, 8 mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase, 12 subunit A phosphoglucomutase-1 13 phosphoglucomutase-1 14 phosphoglucomutase-1 15 glucose-6-phosphate 17 isomerase aldehyde dehydrogenase 19 1 alpha-enolase 20 beta-enolase 21 beta-enolase 22 beta-enolase 23 phosphoglycerate kinase 25 1 fructose-bisphosphate 28 aldolase C-A glycerol-3-phosphate 35 dehydrogenase glyceraldehyde-337 phosphate dehydrogenase C->U-editing enzyme 39 APOBEC-2 carbonic anhydrase 3 40 carbonic anhydrase 3 41 triosephosphate 46 isomerase triosephosphate 47 isomerase triosephosphate 48 isomerase triosephosphate 49 isomerase Miscellaneous Proteins 6 albumin protein 10 serotransferrin precursor
Page 32 of 36
gi|115497166
19000.4
4.91
20
-1.53
-1.52
gi|115497166
19000.4
4.91
18
-1.40
-1.57
gi|115304798
19492.6
4.73
6
-1.30
-1.53
gi|154152079 gi|194670470 gi|194670470
86575.1 57912.0 57912.0
6.92 7.96 7.96
13 26 26
-1.24 1.26 1.37
-1.61 1.25 1.38
gi|60097925
42961.8
6.63
21
1.34
1.41
gi|61888850
21650.3
8.40
18
1.29
1.26
gi|74268076
85233.9
8.08
34
-1.00
1.33
gi|152941202
72886.2
7.55
31
-1.03
1.33
gi|116004023 gi|116004023 gi|116004023
61550.8 61550.8 61550.8
6.36 6.36 6.36
31 31 30
-1.44 1.00 1.66
1.08 1.43 1.03
gi|296477774
62815.0
7.33
24
1.23
1.26
gi|2183299
54799.9
6.30
12
-1.25
-1.34
gi|296479148 gi|77736349 gi|77736349 gi|77736349
47254.3 47066.4 47066.4 47066.4
6.37 7.60 7.60 7.60
23 20 24 24
1.17 1.29 1.38 1.39
1.31 1.27 1.37 1.37
gi|77735551
44509.1
8.48
16
1.22
1.27
gi|156120479
39411.3
8.45
20
1.17
1.30
gi|78365297
37665.4
6.42
15
1.26
1.30
gi|65987
35686.2
6.90
14
1.21
1.29
gi|77735661
25945.9
4.84
15
1.19
1.28
gi|77735829 gi|77735829
29351.8 29351.8
7.71 7.71
18 20
-1.37 -1.10
-1.29 -1.41
gi|61888856
26672.8
6.45
23
1.33
1.24
gi|61888856
26672.8
6.45
23
1.34
1.31
gi|61888856
26672.8
6.45
21
1.27
1.18
gi|61888856
26672.8
6.45
22
1.31
1.13
gi|74267962 gi|114326282
69190.4 77688.7
5.88 6.75
9 37
2.10 -1.31
-1.43 1.10
32 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 33 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
11
serotransferrin precursor gi|114326282 77688.7 6.75 32 -1.26 1.37 phosphatidylethanolamine 54 gi|157829678 20713.5 6.62 15 1.50 1.73 binding protein 59 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 15 -1.07 1.46 60 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 15 1.24 1.64 61 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 14 1.44 1.18 64 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 13 -1.26 -1.13 65 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 14 -1.47 -1.41 66 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 14 1.18 -1.25 67 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 16 -1.33 -1.48 68 myoglobin gi|27806939 17066.9 6.90 15 -1.34 -1.21 fatty acid-binding 70 gi|27805809 14769.6 6.73 14 -1.28 1.07 protein, heart 71 hemoglobin beta gi|294459577 15969.2 6.36 10 -1.61 -3.65 72 hemoglobin, beta subunit gi|27819608 15944.3 7.01 16 -2.25 -1.63 73 hemoglobin, beta subunit gi|27819608 15944.3 7.01 16 -2.12 -1.34 74 hemoglobin, beta subunit gi|27819608 15944.3 7.01 17 1.01 1.28 hemoglobin, alpha 75 gi|116812902 15174.9 8.07 11 -1.64 -1.27 subunit 76 hemoglobin, beta subunit gi|27819608 15944.3 7.01 15 -1.10 -1.40 77 hemoglobin, beta subunit gi|27819608 15944.3 7.01 16 -2.34 -1.79 a b Protein ID and Accession numbers were derived from NCBI databases The theoretical molecular weight (MW) and isoelectric point (PI) of the identified spots were derived from NCBI databases cNumber of matched peptides dIndicates fold change difference, positive values represent greater abundance in the longissimus thoracis of high carcass quality grade (HQ) animals and negative values represent greater abundance in the longissimus dorsi of low carcass quality grade animals. All protein spots shown in the table had a MASCOT protein score C.I. % of 99.7 or higher.
558
33 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 34 of 36
Table 3. Western Blot Analyses of Longissimus thoracis in the Heifers N = 24 High Qualitya
Protein AMPD1c CA3d
165.1 ± 17.2
N = 48
Low Qualitya p Valueb
High Qualitya
Low Qualitya p Valueb
134.4 ± 10.4
114.9 ± 9.5 148.7 ± 3.1
0.03 0.22
171.6 ± 10.3 146.2 ± 6.6
128.9 ± 8.8 153.8 ± 2.7
0.005 0.30
SMTCK ENO3f
100.5 ± 18.8 181.3 ± 8.6
157.9 ± 16.3 193.2 ± 7.0
0.04 0.30
121.3 ± 11.5 163.9 ± 12.5 178.0 ± 4.9 189.6 ± 6.4
0.01 0.16
FABP3g GPD1h
156.6 ± 2.3 108.8 ± 9.7
164.5 ± 8.4 112.4 ± 7.3
0.39 0.77
138.2 ± 6.9 109.0 ± 5.5
157.0 ± 9.5 113.3 ± 6.0
0.12 0.61
HSPB1i MYH1j PARK7k TPIl TPMm
197.7 ± 5.0 160.8 ± 6.5 115.8 ± 13.5 174.8 ± 9.5 196.6 ± 7.3
189.8 ± 10.9 157.3 ± 10.4 96.9 ± 4.2 185.8 ± 16.3 206.9 ± 12.6
0.52 0.78 0.23 0.57 0.50
209.5 ± 5.4 208 ± 7.7 151.6 ± 4.5 151.8 ± 5.4 122.8 ± 8.1 109.5 ± 5.13 145.2 ± 10.7 171.1 ± 12.9 181.9 ± 6.1 202.8 ± 8.1
0.87 0.98 0.18 0.14
e
a
2
0.05
b
Indicates relative densitometric values (ODU/mm ) obtained from the Western blot ± SEM. p ≤ 0.05 was considered significant and is indicated in bold. c adenosine monophosphate deaminase d carbonic anhydrase 3 e sarcomeric mitochondrial creatine kinase f beta enolase g fatty acid binding protein 3 h glyceraldehyde 3 phosphate dehydrogenase i heat shock protein beta 1 j myosin heavy chain 1 k parkinsons 7 l triose phosphate isomerase m tropomyosin
559
34 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 35 of 36
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 4. Western Blot Analyses of the Longissimus thoracis in the Steers
Protein AMPD1c CA3
d
SMTCKe ENO3
f
FABP3
g
GPD1h
N = 24 N = 48 a b a High Quality Low Quality p Value High Quality Low Qualitya p Valueb a
188.8 ± 13.0
156.7 ± 7.4
0.05
175.4 ± 8.9
154.5 ± 9.1
0.12
126.8 ± 6.1
149.3 ± 6.0
0.02
122.3 ± 4.5
151.7 ± 4.7
0.0002
176.9 ± 25.6
194.5 ± 14.3
0.56
171.3 ± 13.6
199.0 ± 8.4
0.10
168.6 ± 9.2
211.2 ± 8.0
0.006
168.5 ± 5.8
215.9 ± 4.6