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:
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
Format: Adobe Acrobat PDF
Size: 1.24 MB
Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following:
- Files 1 to 6 (Microsoft Excel format).
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:
- Create a temporary folder on your machine's hard drive.
- Save the compressed archive to the temporary folder you created, using the links above.
- 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).