
Affinity purification coupled to mass spectrometry provides a reliable method for identifying proteins and their binding partners. In this study we have used Drosophila melanogaster proteins triple tagged with Flag, Strep II, and Yellow fluorescent protein in vivo within affinity pull-down experiments and isolated these proteins in their native complexes from embryos. We describe a pipeline for determining interactomes by Parallel Affinity Capture (iPAC) and show its use by identifying partners of several protein baits with a range of sizes and subcellular locations. This purification protocol employs the different tags in parallel and involves detailed comparison of resulting mass spectrometry data sets, ensuring the interaction lists achieved are of high confidence. We show that this approach identifies known interactors of bait proteins as well as novel interaction partners by comparing data achieved with published interaction data sets. The high confidence in vivo protein data sets presented here add new data to the currently incomplete D. melanogaster interactome. Additionally we report contaminant proteins that are persistent with affinity purifications irrespective of the tagged bait.
Proteome, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, Technological Innovation and Resources, Reproducibility of Results, Chromatography, Affinity, Drosophila melanogaster, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Larva, Protein Phosphatase 1, Protein Interaction Mapping, Animals, Drosophila Proteins, Protein Binding
Proteome, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, Technological Innovation and Resources, Reproducibility of Results, Chromatography, Affinity, Drosophila melanogaster, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Larva, Protein Phosphatase 1, Protein Interaction Mapping, Animals, Drosophila Proteins, Protein Binding
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 67 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
