4.6 Article

Transcript profiling and lipidomic analysis of ceramide subspecies in mouse embryonic stem cells and embryoid bodies

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 480-489

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.M000984

关键词

embryonic stem cell; embryoid body; sphingolipid; differentiation; ceramide synthase; fatty acyl-CoA elongase

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health at the University of Georgia [RR018502]
  2. Lipid Maps [GM069338]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ceramides (Cers) are important in embryogenesis, but no comprehensive analysis of gene expression for Cer metabolism nor the Cer amounts and subspecies has been conducted with an often used model: mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) versus embroid bodies (EBs). Measuring the mRNA levels by quantitative RT-PCR and the amounts of the respective metabolites by LC-ESI/MS/MS, notable differences between R1 mESCs and EBs were: EBs have higher mRNAs for CerS1 and CerS3, which synthesize C18- and C >= 24-carbons dihydroceramides (DH) Cer, respectively; EBs have higher CerS2 (for C24:0- and C24:1-); and EBs have lower CerS5 + CerS6 ( for C16-). In agreement with these findings, EBs have (DH) Cer with higher proportions of C18-, C24- and C26- and less C16- fatty acids, and longer (DH) Cer are also seen in monohexosylCers and sphingomyelins. EBs had higher mRNAs for fatty acyl-CoA elongases that produce C18-, C24-, and C26- fatty acyl-CoAs (Elovl3 and Elovl6), and higher amounts of these cosubstrates for CerS. Thus, these studies have found generally good agreement between genomic and metabolomic data in defining that conversion of mESCs to EBs is accompanied by a large number of changes in gene expression and subspecies distributions for both sphingolipids and fatty acyl-CoAs.-Park, H., C. A. Haynes, A. V. Nair, M. Kulik, S. Dalton, K. Moremen, and A. H. Merrill, Jr. Transcript profiling and lipidomic analysis of ceramide subspecies in mouse embryonic stem cells and embryoid bodies. J. Lipid Res. 2010. 51: 480-489.

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