4.6 Article

Effects of Blood Contamination and the Rostro-Caudal Gradient on the Human Cerebrospinal Fluid Proteome

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090429

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Program for Research in Functional Genomics (FUGE)
  2. Norwegian Research Council
  3. Western Norway Regional Health Authority
  4. Meltzer Foundation
  5. Kjell Alme's Legacy for Research in Multiple Sclerosis
  6. Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Foundation
  7. PRIDE Team, EBI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the last years there has been an increased focus on the importance of knowing the effect of pre-analytical influence on the proteomes under study, particularly in the field of biomarker discovery. We present three proteomics studies examining the effect of blood contamination and the rostro-caudal gradient (RCG) on the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteome, in addition to plasma/CSF protein ratios. The studies showed that the central nervous system (CNS) derived proteins appeared to be unaffected by the RCG, while the plasma-derived proteins showed an increase in concentration towards the lumbar area. This implies that the concentration of the plasma-derived proteins in CSF will vary depending on the volume of CSF that is collected. In the CSF samples spiked with blood, 262 of 814 quantified proteins showed an abundance increase of more than 1.5 fold, while 403 proteins had a fold change of less than 1.2 and appeared to be unaffected by blood contamination. Proteins with a high plasma/CSF ratio appeared to give the largest effect on the CSF proteome upon blood contamination. The results give important background information on how factors like blood contamination, RCG and blood-CNS-barrier influences the CSF proteome. This information is particularly important in the field of biomarker discovery, but also for routine clinical measurements. The data from the blood contamination and RCG discovery studies have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD000401.

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