Open Access Open Badges Short Report

Predicted sub-populations in a marine shrimp proteome as revealed by combined EST and cDNA data from multiple Penaeus species

Pimlapas Leekitcharoenphon1, Udon Taweemuang1, Prasit Palittapongarnpim23, Rattanawadee Kotewong4, Thararat Supasiri4 and Burachai Sonthayanon12*

Author Affiliations

1 Center of Excellence for Shrimp Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (CENTEX Shrimp), Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Rama VI Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand

2 National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Ministry of Science and Technology, Thailand Science Park, 113 Paholyothin Road, Tambon Khlong 1, Amphoe Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand

3 Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Rama VI Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand

4 Department of Chemistry, Srinakharinwirot University, Sukhumvit 23 Rd., Bangkok 10110, Thailand

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Research Notes 2010, 3:295  doi:10.1186/1756-0500-3-295

Published: 11 November 2010



Many species of marine shrimp in the Family Penaeidae, viz. Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei, Penaeus monodon, Penaeus (Fenneropenaeus) chinensis, and Penaeus (Marsupenaeus) japonicus, are animals of economic importance in the aquaculture industry. Yet information about their DNA and protein sequences is lacking. In order to predict their collective proteome, we combined over 270,000 available EST and cDNA sequences from the 4 shrimp species with all protein sequences of Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. EST data from 4 other crustaceans, the crab Carcinus maenas, the lobster Homarus americanus (Decapoda), the water flea Daphnia pulex, and the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana were also used.


Similarity searches from EST collections of the 4 shrimp species matched 64% of the protein sequences of the fruit fly, but only 45% of nematode proteins, indicating that the shrimp proteome content is more similar to that of an insect than a nematode. Combined results with 4 additional non-shrimp crustaceans increased matching to 78% of fruit fly and 56% of nematode proteins, suggesting that present shrimp EST collections still lack sequences for many conserved crustacean proteins. Analysis of matching data revealed the presence of 4 EST groups from shrimp, namely sequences for proteins that are both fruit fly-like and nematode-like, fruit fly-like only, nematode-like only, and non-matching. Gene ontology profiles of proteins for the 3 matching EST groups were analyzed. For non-matching ESTs, a small fraction matched protein sequences from other species in the UniProt database, including other crustacean-specific proteins.


Shrimp ESTs indicated that the shrimp proteome is comprised of sub-populations of proteins similar to those common to both insect and nematode models, those present specifically in either model, or neither. Combining small EST collections from related species to compensate for their small size allowed prediction of conserved expressed protein components encoded by their uncharacterized genomes. The organized data should be useful for transferring annotation data from model species into shrimp data and for further studies on shrimp proteins with particular functions or groups.