4.5 Article

2-DE-based proteomic investigation of the saliva of the Amazonian triatomine vectors of Chagas disease: Rhodnius brethesi and Rhodnius robustus

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
卷 74, 期 9, 页码 1652-1663

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.02.022

关键词

Triatomine; Saliva; Proteomics; Phosphorylation; MALDI-MS/MS; Chagas disease

资金

  1. FAPDF
  2. FINATEC
  3. DPP/UnB
  4. CAPES
  5. CNPq
  6. FINEP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The triatomine bugs are obligatory haematophagous organisms that act as vectors of Chagas disease by transmitting the protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi. Their feeding success is strongly related to salivary proteins that allow these insects to access blood by counteracting host haemostatic mechanisms. Proteomic studies were performed on saliva from the Amazonian triatomine bugs: Rhodnius brethesi and R. robustus, species epidemiologically relevant in the transmission of T. cruzi. Initially, salivary proteins were separated by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE). The average number of spots of the R. brethesi and R. robustus saliva samples were 129 and 135, respectively. The 2-DE profiles were very similar between the two species. Identification of spots by peptide mass fingerprinting afforded limited efficiency, since very few species-specific salivary protein sequences are available in public sequence databases. Therefore, peptide fragmentation and de novo sequencing using a MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometer were applied for similarity-driven identifications which generated very positive results. The data revealed mainly lipocalin-like proteins which promote blood feeding of these insects. The redundancy of saliva sequence identification suggested multiple isoforms caused by gene duplication followed by gene modification and/or post-translational modifications. In the first experimental assay, these proteins were predominantly phosphorylated, suggesting functional phosphoregulation of the lipocalins. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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