4.4 Article

Analysis of the proteomic profile of chronic pressure ulcers

期刊

WOUND REPAIR AND REGENERATION
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 378-401

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00791.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center at the USAMRMC [W81XWH-05-1-0401]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of the proteomic profile of pressure ulcers over time is a critical step in the identification of biomarkers of healing or nonhealing in pressure ulcers. The wound fluid from 32 subjects with 42 pressure ulcers was evaluated over 6 weeks at 15 time points. Samples specific to both the interior and the periphery of the wound bed were collected. Antibody screening arrays, isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation with mass spectrometry and multiplexed microarrays were used to characterize wound fluid and results were correlated with clinical outcome. Twenty-one proteins were found to distinguish between healed and chronic wounds and 19 proteins were differentially expressed between the interior and periphery of wounds. Four proteins, pyruvate kinase isozymes M1/M2, profilin-1, Ig lambda-1 chain C regions, and Ig gamma-1 chain C region, were present in lower levels for periphery samples when compared to interior samples and six proteins, keratin, type II cytoskeletal 6A (KRT6A), keratin, type I cytoskeletal 14, S100 calcium binding proteins A7, alpha-1-antitrypsin precursor, hemoglobin subunit alpha, and hemoglobin subunit beta, were present in higher levels in periphery samples when compared with interior samples. S100 calcium binding protein A6, S100 calcium binding protein A7, and soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products had higher levels in the periphery of chronic wounds vs. the interior in planar arrays. A significant temporal trend was noted for monokine induced by gamma interferon (MIG), synonomous with chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9 (CXCL9), which increased as wounds healed and remained nearly constant for ulcers that were not approaching closure.

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

4.4
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