4.1 Review

Neuroproteomics and systems biology-based discovery of protein biomarkers for traumatic brain injury and clinical validation

期刊

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 2, 期 10-11, 页码 1467-1483

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.200800011

关键词

Degradome; Mass spectrometry; Neuroproteomics; Neurotrauma; Protease

资金

  1. Department of Defense (DOD) [DAMD17-03-1-0066]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 NS39091, R01 NS40182, R01 NS04917, R01 NS049175, R01 NS052831, R01 051431]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rapidly growing field of neuroproteomics has expanded to track global proteomic changes underlying various neurological conditions such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), stroke, and Alzheimer's disease. TBI remains a major health problem with approximately 2 million incidents occurring annually in the United States, yet no affective treatment is available despite several clinical trials. The absence of brain injury diagnostic biomarkers was identified as a significant road-block to therapeutic development for brain injury. Recently, the field of neuroproteomics has undertaken major advances in the area of neurotrauma research, where several candidate markers have been identified and are being evaluated for their efficacy as biological biomarkers in the field of TBI. One scope of this review is to evaluate the current status of TBI biomarker discovery using neuroproteomics techniques, and at what stage we are at in their clinical validation. In addition, we will discuss the need for strengthening the role of systems biology and its application to the field of neuroproteomics due to its integral role in establishing a comprehensive understanding of specific brain disorder and brain function in general. Finally, to achieve true clinical input of these neuroproteomic findings, these putative biomarkers should be validated using preclinical and clinical samples and linked to clinical diagnostic assays including ELISA or other high-throughput assays.

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

4.1
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