4.7 Article

Quantitative Analysis of Age Specific Variation in the Abundance of Human Female Parotid Salivary Proteins

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 5093-5102

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr900478h

关键词

Parotid Saliva; Hydrophobic Charge Interaction Chromatography; Mass Spectrometry

资金

  1. NIH [DE017585, P41 RR011823]
  2. CFFT [BALCH05X5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human saliva is a protein-rich, easily accessible source of potential local and systemic biomarkers to monitor changes that occur under pathological conditions; however, little is known about the changes in abundance associated with normal aging. In this study, we performed a comprehensive proteomic profiling of pooled saliva collected from the parotid glands of healthy female subjects, divided into two age groups 1 and 2 (20-30 and 55-65 years old, respectively) Hydrophobic charge interaction chromatography was used to separate high-from low-abundance proteins prior to characterization of the parotid saliva using multidimensional protein identification technology (MudPIT) Collectively, 532 proteins were identified in the two age groups Of these proteins, 266 were identified exclusively in one age group, while 266 proteins were common to both groups The majority of the proteins identified in the two age groups belonged to the defense and immune response category. Of note, several defense related proteins (e.g., lysozyme, lactoferrin and histatin-1) were significantly more abundant in group 2 as determined by G-test. Selected representative mass spectrometric findings were validated by Western blot analysis. Our study reports the first quantitative analysis of differentially regulated proteins in ductal saliva collected from young and older female subjects. This study supports the use of high-throughput proteomics as a robust discovery tool. Such results provide a foundation for future studies to identify specific salivary proteins which may be linked to age-related diseases specific to women

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

4.7
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