4.6 Article

The proteome of mouse cerebral arteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 1033-1046

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2014.52

关键词

circle of Willis; cerebral artery; cerebral microvessels; proteomics; vascular reactivity

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [MOP-84275, MOP-126001]
  2. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  3. CIHR Banting and Best Canada Graduate Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cerebral vasculature ensures proper cerebral function by transporting oxygen, nutrients, and other substances to the brain. Distribution of oxygenated blood throughout the neuroaxis takes place at the level of the circle of Willis (CW). While morphologic and functional alterations in CW arteries and its main branches have been reported in cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, accompanying changes in protein expression profiles remain largely uncharacterized. In this study, we performed proteomics to compile a novel list of proteins present in mouse CW arteries and its ramifications. Circle of Willis arteries were surgically removed from 6-month-old wild-type mice, proteins extracted and analyzed by two proteomics approaches, gel-free nanoLC-mass spectrometry (MS)/MS and gel-based GeILC-MS/MS, using nanoAcquity UPLC coupled with ESI-LTQ Orbitrap XL. The two approaches helped maximize arterial proteome coverage. Six biologic and two technical replicates were performed. In all, 2,188 proteins with at least 2 unique high-scoring peptides were identified (6,630 proteins total). Proteins were classified according to vasoactivity, blood-brain barrier specificity, tight junction and adhesion molecules, membrane transporters/channels, and extracellular matrix/basal lamina proteins. Furthermore, we compared the identified CW arterial proteome with the published brain microvascular proteome. Our database provides a vital resource for the study of CW cerebral arterial protein expression profiles in health and disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据