4.5 Article

Redox Proteomics in Aging Rat Brain: Involvement of Mitochondrial Reduced Glutathione Status and Mitochondrial Protein Oxidation in the Aging Process

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 88, 期 16, 页码 3498-3507

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.22500

关键词

aging; proteomics; central nervous system; neurodegeneration; oxidative stress

资金

  1. MIUR
  2. FIRB [RBRN07BMCT]
  3. INBB
  4. Fondi Ateneo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing evidence supports the notion that increased oxidative stress is a fundamental cause in the aging process and in neurodegenerative diseases. As a result, a decline in cognitive function is generally associated with brain aging. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are highly reactive intermediates, which can modify proteins, nucleic acids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids, leading to neuronal damage. Because proteins are major components of biological systems and play key roles in a variety of cellular functions, oxidative damage to proteins represents a primary event observed in aging and age-related neurodegenerative disorders. In the present study, with a redox proteomics approach, we identified mitochondrial oxidatively modified proteins as a function of brain aging, specifically in those brain regions, such as cortex and hippocampus, that are commonly affected by the aging process. In all brain regions examined, many of the identified proteins were energy-related, such as pyruvate kinase, ATP synthase, aldolase, creatine kinase, and alpha-enolase. These alterations were associated with significant changes in both cytosolic and mitochondrial redox status in all brain regions analyzed. Our finding is in line with current literature postulating that free radical damage and decreased energy production are characteristic hallmarks of the aging process. In additon, our results further contribute to identifying common pathological pathways involved both in aging and in neurodegenerative disease development. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.5
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