4.6 Article

Impact of Age on the Cerebrovascular Proteomes of Wild-Type and Tg-SwDI Mice

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089970

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alzheimer Society [1742]
  2. Alzheimer's Research UK
  3. SynthSys
  4. BBSRC
  5. EPSRC [BB/D019621/1]
  6. AXA Research Fund
  7. BBSRC [BB/D019621/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Alzheimers Research UK [ART-PG2010-3] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D019621/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structural integrity of cerebral vessels is compromised during ageing. Abnormal amyloid (Ab) deposition in the vasculature can accelerate age-related pathologies. The cerebrovascular response associated with ageing and microvascular Ab deposition was defined using quantitative label-free shotgun proteomic analysis. Over 650 proteins were quantified in vessel-enriched fractions from the brains of 3 and 9 month-old wild-type (WT) and Tg-SwDI mice. Sixty-five proteins were significantly increased in older WT animals and included several basement membrane proteins (nidogen-1, basement membrane-specific heparan sulfate proteoglycan core protein, laminin subunit gamma-1 precursor and collagen alpha-2(IV) chain preproprotein). Twenty-four proteins were increased and twenty-one decreased in older Tg-SwDI mice. Of these, increases in Apolipoprotein E (APOE) and high temperature requirement serine protease-1 (HTRA1) and decreases in spliceosome and RNA-binding proteins were the most prominent. Only six shared proteins were altered in both 9-month old WT and Tg-SwDI animals. The age-related proteomic response in the cerebrovasculature was distinctly different in the presence of microvascular A beta deposition. Proteins found differentially expressed within the WT and Tg-SwDI animals give greater insight to the mechanisms behind age-related cerebrovascular dysfunction and pathologies and may provide novel therapeutic targets.

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