4.1 Article

Proteome profiling of vitreoretinal diseases by cluster analysis

Journal

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
Volume 2, Issue 9, Pages 1265-1280

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.200800017

Keywords

cluster analysis; marker proteins; quantitative proteomics; two-dimensional gel; vitreoretinal diseases

Funding

  1. NIH [EY13877, EY12190, RR17703]
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P20RR017703] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [P30EY012190, R01EY013877] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vitreous samples collected in retinopathic surgeries have diverse properties, making proteomics analysis difficult. We report a cluster analysis to evade this difficulty. Vitreous and subretinal fluid samples were collected from 60 patients during surgical operation of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. For controls, we collected vitreous fluid from patients of idiopathic macular hole, epiretinal, and from a healthy postmortem donor. Proteins from these samples were subjected to quantitative proteomics using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. We selected 105 proteins robustly expressed among ca. 400 protein spots and subjected them to permutation test. By using permutation test analysis we observed unique variations in the expression of some of these proteins in vitreoretinal diseases when compared to the control and to each other: (i) the levels of inflammation -associated proteins such as alpha 1 -antitrypsin, apolipoprotein A4, albumin, and transferrin were significantly higher in all four types of vitreoretinal diseases, and (ii) each vitreoretinal disease elevated a unique set of proteins, which can be interpreted based on the pathology of retinopathy. Our protocol will be effective for the study of protein expression in other types of clinical samples of diverse properties.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available