G O V E R N M E N T
A N D
S O C I E T Y
EuPO changes name to EuPA To avoid confusion with the name HUPO, the European Proteomics Organisation (EuPO) officially changed its name to the European Proteomics Association (EuPA) at its February meeting in Córdoba, Spain. The change shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. At the conclusion of the organization’s first meeting in Siena, Italy, last August, members said that the hardest part of forming the new group was deciding on a name ( J. Proteome Res. 2004, 3, 1107). At the Córdoba meeting, EuPA representatives agreed on five initial goals for the organization: promote networking through meetings, workshops, and student exchange; provide education on proteomics technologies and applications; sponsor awards and fellowships;
666
establish and maintain HUPO contacts; and lobby in Brussels, Belgium, for EuPA-related activities. In addition, EuPA defined its mission statement. First, the organization will strengthen the national proteomics organizations in their efforts; second, EuPA will coordinate and provide edu-
Journal of Proteome Research • Vol. 4, No. 3, 2005
cational programs; and third, it will advance networking of scientists. Funding for the organization will likely come from donations from individuals, funding agencies, and nonprofit and for-profit organizations. In addition, a yearly membership fee of €2 per member of each national organization will be charged. Any European country that has a national organization with an interest in proteomics is welcome to join EuPA. EuPA will hold its next meeting during the HUPO Fourth Annual World Congress in Munich, Germany, in August. At this meeting, EuPA’s committees will be established and working groups will be installed. More information will be available on EuPA’s website, which is registered as www.eupa.org, after the Munich meeting.
G O V E R N M E N T Proteomics reveals effects of aquaculture on fish As the world’s fish stocks become increasingly depleted, farm-raised fish is gaining in popularity as an alternative source of valuable protein for consumers. But does aquaculture induce chemical and biochemical differences in fish proteins, and does it affect food quality? Proteomics studies are beginning to provide some of the answers. Proteomics has the potential to play an important role in developing new aquaculture strategies, says Angela Amoresano of the Federico II University of Naples (Italy). For example, “The lipid composition and protein content [of farm-raised fish] are dependent on the composition of feed that the fish consume,” she says. The nutritional intake of the fish can be adjusted to improve the quality. In addition, proteomics could help in developing new breeding strategies, preserving biodiversity, and reducing the environmental impact of aquaculture. Amoresano and her colleagues recently used an integrated proteomics approach based on microfluidic electrophoresis to examine differences between farmed and wild sea bass ( Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 2587–2594). Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) is one of the most commonly consumed farm-raised fish in Europe, particularly in Italy, says Amoresano. In their study, the researchers used two commercially available protein chips. One chip was used for the analysis of high-mass proteins and the other for low-mass proteins. The chips provided the relative quantitation of proteins in a high-throughput way with good resolution and sensitivity, says Amoresano. The protein-content profile from protein mixtures was obtained within minutes, she says. The proteins were also fractionated by SDS-PAGE followed by in situ digestion, and they were identified by MALDI MS using a procedure called peptide mass fingerprint analysis. However, because the genome of the sea bass is still unknown, mass fingerprint analysis identified only a single protein, says Amoresano. So the researchers turned to liquid chromatography/ESI-MS/MS analysis. In addition, they used MALDITOF-TOFMS and a database search program for the identification of several
A N D
S O C I E T Y
(a)
(b)
MW (kDa)
MW (kDa)
210 53.0
117 97.4
32.5 29.0
66.7 53.0
21.5 14.4
32.5 29.0 21.5 14.4 9.0 6.0
6.0 4.5 3.5
L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Captive vs wild. Gel-like images of muscle protein extract from farm-raised sea bass (lanes 1–5) and wild sea bass (lanes 6–10) analyzed on (a) a Protein 200 Plus Chip and (b) a Protein 50 Chip.
proteins on the basis of a homology search. The results showed differences in relative protein concentrations in at least nine proteins between farmed and wild fish muscle tissues. In some cases, the farmed fish had increased protein levels, and in others, they had decreased levels. Many enzymes that are involved in carbohydrate metabolism, including glyceraldehydes-3-phosphate dehydrogenase and aldolase, were overexpressed in the farmed sea bass samples. On the other hand, concentrations of creatine kinase, nuclease diphosphate kinase B, and parvalbumin were lower in the farm-raised fish than in the wild ones. The decrease in these particular proteins suggests that muscle development is influenced by aquaculture conditions. The differences in protein levels may be caused by environmental conditions, specific feeding strategies, or both, says Amoresano. To obtain a complete picture of the differences between farmed and wild sea bass, the researchers also analyzed the fatty acid and metals content. Fatty acids were determined as methyl ester derivatives by gas chromatography/MS, and metals were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma MS. The farmed fish had ~2 lower concentration of fatty acids with 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 carbon atoms. The differences in lipid composition are likely due to differences in diet. As far as metals are concerned, lower
levels of mercury, zinc, aluminum, cadmium, and cobalt were found in farmed fish. On the other hand, farmed fish had higher levels of copper, manganese, lead, and boron. It is unclear whether the differences in metal content are caused by diet or environmental conditions, says Amoresano. In the future, the researchers plan to use a similar approach to investigate other species of farm-raised fish. To make things a little easier, they hope to examine ones with known genome sequences, says Amoresano. An integrated proteomics approach like the one used for studying the sea bass is an easy way to monitor food quality, she says. Such studies will become increasingly important as the number and size of fish farms grow. Several other groups are also using proteomics to investigate seafood and other products of marine origin. Carmen Piñeiro and colleagues at Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, and Centro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa (all in Spain) recently reviewed the topic, focusing on the safety, traceability, authenticity, and health benefits of seafood ( J. Proteome Res. 2003, 2, 127–135). The review also describes the current status of proteomics in the development of newer biotechnology products of marine origin that improve traits such as growth rate and thermotolerance. —Britt E. Erickson
Journal of Proteome Research • Vol. 4, No. 3, 2005
667
