91 178 50 4   aProtein identifications were confirmed with a sign

91 178 50 4   awww.selleckchem.com/products/LY2228820.html protein identifications were confirmed with a significant MASCOT score of 71 for peptide mass fingerprint and ANOVA p ≤ 0.05, and a minimum of three matched peptides. bSignificant MS/MS score is > 54 for searches in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Spectra’s for single peptide identifications are supplied in Additional file 1. A general feature for all proteomes was that the proteins clustered in two regions on the gel, a region in the range of 36–42 kDa and one low molecular region from 8–20 kDa. Furthermore, a massively stained protein cluster at about pI 5.0-6.3 with a Mr of 37–42 kDa was identified in all gels. This protein cluster corresponded to the most abundant protein in beer – ATM inhibitor protein Z (Figure 3, Table 2). During fermentation of both beers, wort protein changes occurred.

The protein spots identified as LTP1 (Figure 3; spot A22-A26, Table 2) on the wort 2-DE A-1210477 ic50 gel were more intense, than the corresponding spots on the 2-DE gel for the two beers. In the same pI range as LTP1 was detected, two lower molecular protein spots (Figure 3; spot A28, A29, Table 2) were detected in wort and identified as LTP2. These two LTP2 spots were undetectable in beer (Figure 3). Another feature that occurred during fermentation was that the serpin protein cluster of protein Z was shifted towards the acidic area, dividing the serpin protein cluster into two (Figure 3; B,C). This was not observed on the wort protein 2-DE gel (Figure 3; A). Three protein spots found exclusively in beer were identified to be cell wall associated yeast proteins, Uth1 – involved in cell wall biogenesis (Figure 3; spot B1, Table 2,

Additional file 1), Exg1 – an exo-β-1,3-glucanase, (Figure 3; spot B2, C2, Table 2) and Bgl2 – endo-β-1,3-glucanase (Figure 3; spot C5, Table 2, Additional file 1). In both beers, two higher molecular protein spots with a pI of 4.8 were observed Verteporfin ic50 and identified by MALDI-TOF-MS as Uth1 (55 kDa [Figure 3; spot B1, C1, Table 2]) and Exg1 (47 kDa [Figure 3; spot B2, C2, Table 2]). Although protein spots corresponding to Uth1 were observed in both beers, Uth1 was only identified in beer brewed with WLP001 (Figure 3; spot B1). In beer brewed with KVL011 a protein spot of 34 kDa (Figure 3; spot C5) was identified as Bgl2, which was not observed in the proteome of beer brewed with WLP001. However, Exg1 was identified in the beer brewed with both brewer’s yeast strains (Figure 3; spot B2, C2). Discussion Several proteome analyses of beer [4, 5, 8, 15, 17], malt [8, 14, 22, 23] and beer related processes [6, 16] have been made, but none seem to have considered the influence of fermentation and brewer’s yeast strains on the beer proteome. To investigate if proteome changes from wort to beer were yeast strain dependent, proteins from wort and beer brewed with two different ale brewer’s yeast strains were separated by 2-DE and identified by MALDI-TOF-MS.

Comments are closed.