4.6 Article

A Proteomic Analysis of Individual and Gender Variations in Normal Human Urine and Cerebrospinal Fluid Using iTRAQ Quantification

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133270

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB530805, 2014CBA02005]
  2. Key Basic Research Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2013FY114100]
  3. Science and Technology Yuanjiang project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region [2013911114]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31400669]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urine and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are two important biofluids used for disease biomarker discovery. For differential proteomic analysis, it is essential to evaluate individual and gender variations. In this study, we characterized urinary and CSF proteomes of 14 healthy volunteers with regard to individual and gender variations using 2DLC-MS/MS analysis and 8-plex iTRAQ quantification. A total of 968/512 urinary/CSF proteins were identified, with 406/280 quantified in all individuals. The median inter-individual coefficients of variation (CVs) were 0.262 and 0.183 for urinary and CSF proteomes, respectively. Cluster analysis showed that male and female urinary proteomes exhibited different patterns, though CSF proteome showed no remarkable gender differences. In comparison with CSF proteome, urinary proteome showed higher individual variation. Further analysis revealed that individual variation was not correlated with protein abundance. The minimum sample size for proteomic analysis with a 2-fold change was 10 (4/5 for males/females using iTRAQ quantification) for urinary or 8 for CSF proteome. Intracellular proteins leaked from exfoliative cells tended to have higher CVs, and extracellular proteins secreted from urinary tract or originating from plasma tended to have lower CVs. The above results might be beneficial for differential proteomic analysis and biomarker discovery.

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

4.6
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