Table 2.

Comparative proteomic analysis between the pfd6–1 mutant and wild type

Spot no.	Peptide matched	Gene ocus	Protein identity	Ratio	P value
1	13	At2 g17980	Sec1-like protein (SLY1)	−1.6	5.9E-5
2	11	At1 g79340	Metacaspase 4 (ATMC4)	−1.48	7.6E-3
3	74	At1 g48600	Phosphoethanolamine methyltransferase 2	−1.31	2.4E-4
4	3	At3 g02540	Ubiquitin family protein	−1.36	1.2E-2
5	4	At4 g26110	Nucleosome assembly protein1 (NAP1)	−1.77	1.2E-5
6	18	At1 g75780	TUB1	−1.54	2.0E-4
7	15	At4 g20890	TUB9	−1.41	3.9E-5
8	13	At2 g29550	TUB7	−1.41	3.9E-5
9	67	At5 g44340	TUB4	−1.4	2.4E-3
10	23	At4 g32720	LA protein 1 (ATLA1)	−1.62	2.7E-5
11	8	At1 g76030	V-ATPase B subunit	−1.28	1.0E-3
12	51	At3 g55800	Sedoheptulose-1,7-bisphosphatase	−1.78	1.2E-4

Representative proteins down-regulated in pfd6–1 were identified. Number of peptides obtained from tandem MS analysis of each spot is listed. Average protein level ratios of pfd6–1/wild type and the t test P values are calculated from 3 replicates. Negative ratios indicate that spots were down-regulated in pfd6–1. Spots are numbered as in Fig. 4.