4.6 Article

Isobaric Tagging-Based Quantification for Proteomic Analysis: A Comparative Study of Spared and Affected Muscles from mdx Mice at the Early Phase of Dystrophy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065831

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [11/51697-6, 08/58491-1, 08/54775-5]
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Conselho Nacional de Pesquisas [301306/2010-9]
  4. CAPES [2014-10-6]
  5. Knut and Alice Wallenberg (KAW) [2007.0118]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common childhood myopathy, characterized by muscle loss and cardiorespiratory failure. While the genetic basis of DMD is well established, secondary mechanisms associated with dystrophic pathophysiology are not fully clarified yet. In order to obtain new insights into the molecular mechanisms of muscle dystrophy during earlier stages of the disease, we performed a comparative proteomic profile of the spared extraocular muscles (EOM) vs. affected diaphragm from the mdx mice, using a label based shotgun proteomic approach. Out of the 857 identified proteins, 42 to 62 proteins had differential abundance of peptide ions. The calcium-handling proteins sarcalumenin and calsequestrin-1 were increased in control EOM compared with control DIA, reinforcing the view that constitutional properties of EOM are important for their protection against myonecrosis. The finding that galectin-1 (muscle regeneration), annexin A1 (anti-inflammatory) and HSP 47 (fibrosis) were increased in dystrophic diaphragm provides novel insights into the mechanisms through which mdx affected muscles are able to counteract dystrophy, during the early stage of the disease. Overall, the shotgun technique proved to be suitable to perform quantitative comparisons between distinct dystrophic muscles and allowed the suggestion of new potential biomarkers and drug targets for dystrophinopaties.

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