4.2 Article

Identification of marker proteins of muscular dystrophy in the urine proteome from themdx-4cvmodel of dystrophinopathy

Journal

MOLECULAR OMICS
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 268-278

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9mo00182d

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Kathleen Lonsdale Institute for Human Health Research at Maynooth University
  2. Science Foundation Ireland [SFI-12/RI/2346/3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the protein constituents of urine present a dynamic proteome that can reflect a variety of disease-related alterations in the body, the mass spectrometric survey of proteome-wide changes in urine promises new insights into pathogenic mechanisms. Urine can be investigated in a completely non-invasive way and provides valuable biomedical information on body-wide changes. In this report, we have focused on the urine proteome in X-linked muscular dystrophy using the establishedmdx-4cvmouse model of dystrophinopathy. In order to avoid potential artefacts due to the manipulation of the biofluid proteome prior to mass spectrometry, crude urine specimens were analyzed without the prior usage of centrifugation steps or concentration procedures. Comparative proteomics revealed 21 increased and 8 decreased proteins out of 870 identified urinary proteoforms using 50 mu l of biofluid per investigated sample,i.e.14 wild typeversus14mdx-4cvspecimens. Promising marker proteins that were almost exclusively found inmdx-4cvurine included nidogen, parvalbumin and titin. Interestingly, the mass spectrometric identification of urine-associated titin revealed a wide spread of peptides over the sequence of this giant muscle protein. The newly established urinomic signature of dystrophinopathy might be helpful for the design of non-invasive assays to improve diagnosis, prognosis, therapy-monitoring and evaluation of potential harmful side effects of novel treatments in the field of muscular dystrophy research.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available