Skip to main content
. 2008 Aug 22;13(8b):2019–2029. doi: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00478.x

Table 2.

Proteomic identification of nitrated proteins found in EAD IPL

gI accessioning number Name Mowse score pI Apparent molecular weight (Mr) # peptides matched Protein nitration (% control) Probability
gi|32189392 Peroxiredoxin 2 (Prx2) 135 5.67 21,918 11/34 187 ± 0.15 <0.05
gi|4507645 Triose phosphate isomerase (TPI) 74 6.51 26,807 6/18 463 ± 63.5 <0.02
gi|4885281 Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) 112 7.66 61,701 14/40 376 ± 29.1 <0.05
gi|913159 Neuropolypeptide h3 104 7.42 21,027 9/36 23.5 ± 0.04* <0.02
gi|4505753 Phosphoglycerate mutase 1 (PGM) 91 6.75 28,769 9/32 230 ± 4.20 <0.05
gi|4502317 H+ transporting ATPase 83 7.71 26,186 7/13 84.8 ± 0.05* <0.04
gi|4503571 α‐Enolase 191 6.99 47,350 20/48 516 ± 25.1 <0.01
gi|4930167 Fructose 1,6‐bisphosphate aldolase (ALDO1) 80 8.39 39,720 7/18 199 ± 21.5 <0.04

*With an n= 4, if one blot has a particularly less intense protein spot for a statistically significant protein spot, this can cause an overall lower level of protein nitration. The overall % protein nitration is based on the average of protein nitration levels of all statistically significant protein spots. Ideally, one should have a greater n to avoid this potential problem, but samples from EAD are extremely rare, so we are fortunate just to have n= 4.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure