4.5 Article

Quantitative proteomics reveals olfactory input-dependent alterations in the mouse olfactory bulb proteome

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 125-142

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2014.06.023

关键词

Olfactory bulb; Quantitative proteomics; Odor deprivation; Odor exposure; Metabolic process; Synaptic transmission

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2013CB911102, 2012BAI23B02]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [91132307/H09, 31171061/C090208, 21105116]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB02050005]
  4. 111 Project of China [B06018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Olfactory sensory information is processed and integrated by circuits within the olfactory bulb (OS) before being sent to the olfactory cortex. In the mammalian OB, neural activity driven by external stimuli can lead to experience-dependent changes in structures and functions. In this study, quantitative proteomics techniques were employed to study proteome-wide changes in the OB under four levels of neural activity (from low to high): devoid of peripheral input (using a transgenic model), wild-type control, and short-term and long-term odor exposures. Our results revealed that proteins related to various processes were altered in the OBs of odor-deprived and odor-stimulated mice compared to the wild-type controls. These changes induced by odor stimulation were quite different from those induced by a deficit in peripheral olfactory inputs. Detailed analysis demonstrated that metabolic process and synaptic transmission were the most commonly altered pathways and that the effects of peripheral deprivation were more profound. Our comparative proteomics analysis indicated that olfactory deprivation and odor exposure lead to different alterations in the OB proteome, which provides new dues about the mechanisms underlying the olfactory deprivation- or odor stimulation-induced plasticity of OB function and organization. (C) 2014 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