4.5 Article

Muscle tissue as an endocrine organ: Comparative secretome profiling of slow-oxidative and fast-glycolytic rat muscle explants and its variation with exercise

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
卷 75, 期 17, 页码 5414-5425

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.06.037

关键词

Secretome; Myokine; Exercise; Soleus; Gastrocnemius; 2-DE

资金

  1. Merk-Serono
  2. Fundacion Mutua Madrilena
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion de Espana) [FISPI07/0908, FISP10/00537, CP08/00216]
  4. CIBER Fisiopatologia Obesidad y Nutricion, Instituto de Salud Carlos III [CB06/03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The notion that skeletal muscle is a secretory organ capable to release proteins that can act locally in an autocrine/paracrine manner or even in an endocrine manner to communicate with distant tissues has now been recognized. Under this context, a new paradigm has arisen implicating the muscle in metabolism regulation. Considering the evidences that give exercise a protective role against illnesses associated to physical inactivity, it becomes of especial relevance to characterize muscle secreted proteins. In the present study we show for the first time the secretome characterization and the comparative 2-DE secretome analysis among fast-glycolytic (gastrocnemius) and slow-oxidative (soleus) rat muscle explants and its variation after exercise intervention. We have identified 19 differently secreted proteins when comparing soleus and gastrocnemius secretomes, and 10 in gastrocnemius and 17 in soleus distinctive secreted proteins after 1 week of endurance exercise training. Among identified proteins, DJ-1 was found to be more abundant in fast-glycolytic fiber secretomes. On the contrary, FABP-3 was elevated in slow-oxidative fiber secretomes, although its secretion from gastrocnemius muscle increased in exercised animals. These and other secreted proteins identified in this work may be considered as potential myokines. (C) 2012 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