Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.


Sci. Signal., 21 June 2011
[DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.2001484]

Supplementary Materials for:

Comparative Proteomic Analysis Identifies a Role for SUMO in Protein Quality Control

Michael H. Tatham, Ivan Matic, Matthias Mann, Ronald T. Hay*

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: r.t.hay{at}dundee.ac.uk

This PDF file includes:

  • Materials and Methods
  • Fig. S1. TAP–SUMO-2 conjugation response to MG132 treatment under SILAC conditions.
  • Fig. S2. Filtering TAP–SUMO-2 protein identifications and normalizing with SILAC ratio data from crude cell lysates.
  • Fig. S3. Known SUMO substrates are enriched in the list of putative SUMO-2 substrates in comparison with those proteins rejected from the analysis.
  • Fig. S4. "Putative substrates" run in SDS-PAGE gels at molecular weights consistent with posttranslational modification, whereas "internal rejects" do not.
  • Fig. S5. Changes in protein ratios during MG132 treatment are due to altered SUMOylation and not changes in overall protein concentrations.
  • Fig. S6. Only a small proportion of the total cellular pool of most substrates is modified by SUMO-2 and responds to MG132 with altered SUMOylation.
  • Fig. S7. Lactacystin and MG132 trigger similar changes in SUMO-2 conjugation in HeLa cells.
  • Fig. S8. Comparisons of the functions of SUMO-2 substrates identified here and in a previous study.
  • Fig. S9. Canavanine induces SUMO-2/3 conjugation and turnover.
  • Fig. S10. Comparison between the effects of heat shock and MG132 on proteins involved in SUMO and ubiquitin metabolism purified by TAP–SUMO-2 from HeLa cells.
  • Fig. S11. Slice-by-slice analysis of data shown in Fig. 6A.
  • Fig. S12. Slice-by-slice analysis of data shown in Fig. 6, B and C.
  • Fig. S13. Comparison of the quantitative data between proteins common to this study and that of Schimmel et al.
  • Fig. S14. A working model for the response of SUMO and ubiquitin to proteasome inhibition.
  • Fig. S15. The SUMO conjugation signal in response to MG132 transfers from the cytoplasm to the nucleus.
  • Table S1. Frequency analysis of SUMO conjugation consensus sequences from proteins identified in this study compared with those of previous studies.
  • Descriptions of Files 1 to 6
  • References

[Download PDF]

Technical Details

Format: Adobe Acrobat PDF

Size: 1.24 MB

Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:

  • Files 1 to 6 (Microsoft Excel format).

[Download Files 1 to 6 (Compressed)]

Technical Details

Format: Microsoft Excel. Files are packaged as a compressed archive, in *.zip format; users should download the compressed file to their machine and decompress the file on their local hard drive, using the instructions below.

Size: 45 MB (compressed); 48.4 MB (decompressed)


Instructions for downloading and decompressing files:

  1. Create a temporary folder on your machine's hard drive.
  2. Save the compressed archive to the temporary folder you created, using the links above.
  3. Decompress the compressed file in the temporary folder using decompression software such as WinZip (Windows; www.winzip.com) or StuffIt Expander (Windows and Mac; www.stuffit.com).

Citation: M. H. Tatham, I. Matic, M. Mann, R. T. Hay, Comparative Proteomic Analysis Identifies a Role for SUMO in Protein Quality Control. Sci. Signal. 4, rs4 (2011).

© 2011 American Association for the Advancement of Science


To Advertise     Find Products


Science Signaling. ISSN 1937-9145 (online), 1945-0877 (print). Pre-2008: Science's STKE. ISSN 1525-8882