RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/a-2781-8225
Chemical Bias in Cysteine-Reactive Probe Profiling: In Vivo Perfusion versus Postmortem Lysis and Cells
Autor*innen
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (1R01HG012941-01) to Monika Raj. Monika Raj was supported by a Research Scholar Grant (RSG-22-025-01-CDP) from the American Cancer Society. John M. Talbott was supported by the ARCS Foundation Award.
Abstract
Chemoproteomic probes are typically screened in postmortem lysates or cell cultures, assuming these models accurately reflect native protein reactivity. However, the impact of the reaction medium, intact tissues versus homogenate, remains poorly defined. Here we utilize iodoacetamide-alkyne to benchmark probe performance across three distinct reaction environments, in vivo perfusion, postmortem lysate, and live cell culture. Contrary to the assumption that lysate offers comprehensive access, we show that homogenization systematically suppresses the labeling of ATP-dependent ligases and integral membrane proteins, likely due to the rapid collapse of active-site energetics and membrane depolarization. Postmortem lysate showed greater nuclear access and enrichment of oxidoreductase/stress-response signatures, consistent with processing effects, whereas the cell model overlapped least with the tissue and displayed culture-specific pathway biases. Furthermore, we address the confounding variable of probe distribution by demonstrating that perfusion achieves equivalent saturation to lysate dosing, confirming that observed differences stems from native-state reactivity rather than accessibility. These findings provide a critical correction factor for synthetic chemists: probes validated solely in lysate may suffer from predictable false negatives against metabolically active targets.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 08. September 2025
Angenommen nach Revision: 06. Januar 2026
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. Februar 2026
© 2026. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Aebersold R, Mann M. Nature 2016; 537: 347
- 2 Petricoin EF, Ornstein DK, Liotta LA. Urol Oncol 2004; 4: 322
- 3 Nakayasu ES, Gritsenko M, Piehowski PD. et al. Nat Protoc 2021; 16: 3737
- 4 Meissner F, Geddes-McAlister J, Mann M, Bantscheff M. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2022; 21: 637
- 5 Macklin A, Khan S, Kislinger T. Clin Proteomics 2020; 17: 17
- 6 Sköld K, Alm H, Scholz B. Mol Cell Proteomics 2014; 12: 1489
- 7 Beusch CM, Braesch-Andersen K, Felldin U. et al. Commun Biol 2025; 8: 78
- 8 Farhi J, Emenike B, Lee RS. et al. J Am Chem Soc 2025; 147: 7214
- 9 Whitby LR, Obach RS, Simon GM, Hayward MM, Cravatt BF. ACS Chem Biol 2017; 12: 2040
- 10 Weerapana E, Wang C, Simon GM. et al. Nature 2010; 468: 790
- 11 Ge SX, Jung D, Yao R. Bioinformatics 2019; 36: 2628
- 12 Wencke W, Sánchez-Cabo F, Ricote M. Bioinformatics 2015; 31: 2912-2914
- 13 Dalton AC, Barton WA. Protein Sci 2014; 23: 517
- 14 Sacco MA, Cordasco F, Scalise C, Ricci P, Aquila I. Diagnostics 2022; 12: 1490
- 15 Yin X, Beele A, Theofilatos K. et al. J Proteome Res 2025; 24: 3154
- 16 Kavallaris M, Marshall GM. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 575
- 17 Lopaschuk GD, Ussher JR, Folmes CDL, Jaswal JS, Stanley WC. Physiol Rev 2010; 90: 207
- 18 Krassner MM, Kauffman J, Sowa A. et al. Free Neuropathol 2023; 4: 4790