4.7 Article

Label-Free Quantitative Proteomics Reveals Differentially Regulated Proteins in Experimental Gingivitis

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 657-678

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr300761e

Keywords

gingival crevicular fluid; inflammation; biomarker; periodontal disease; pathogenesis

Funding

  1. Colgate-Palmolive, NJ, USA
  2. Forschungskredit, University of Zurich

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated the sequential protein expression in gingival crevicular fluid samples during the induction (I) and resolution (R) of experimental gingivitis. Periodontally and systemically healthy volunteers (n = 20) participated in a three-week experimental gingivitis protocol, followed by debridement and two weeks of regular plaque control. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected at baseline, Day 7, 14, and 21 (induction; I-phase), and at Day 21, 25, 30, and 35 (resolution; R-phase). Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for label-free quantitative proteomics was applied. A total of 287 proteins were identified including 254 human, 14 bacterial, 12 fungal, and 7 yeast proteins. Ontology analysis revealed proteins primarily involved in cytoskeletal rearrangements, immune response, antimicrobial function, protein degradation, and DNA binding. There was considerable variation in the number of proteins identified, both among subjects and within subjects across time points. After pooling of samples between subjects at each time point, the levels of 59 proteins in the I-phase and 73 proteins in the R-phase were quantified longitudinally. Our data demonstrate that LC MS/MS label-free quantitative proteomics is valuable in the assessment of the protein content of the GCF and can facilitate a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in the induction and resolution of plaque-induced gingival inflammation in humans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available