4.7 Article

Proteolytic signatures define unique thrombin-derived peptides present in human wound fluid in vivo

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13197-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Start-Up Grant, Singapore Ministry of Education under Singapore Ministry of Education [2015-T1-001-082]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2012-1883]
  3. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  4. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  5. Lee Kong Chian School, Nanyang Technological University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The disease burden of failing skin repair and non-healing ulcers is extensive. There is an unmet need for new diagnostic approaches to better predict healing activity and wound infection. Uncontrolled and excessive protease activity, of endogenous or bacterial origin, has been described as a major contributor to wound healing impairments. Proteolytic peptide patterns could therefore correlate and report healing activity and infection. This work describes a proof of principle delineating a strategy by which peptides from a selected protein, human thrombin, are detected and attributed to proteolytic actions. With a particular focus on thrombin-derived C-terminal peptides (TCP), we show that distinct peptide patterns are generated in vitro by the human S1 peptidases human neutrophil elastase and cathepsin G, and the bacterial M4 peptidases Pseudomonas aeruginosa elastase and Staphylococcus aureus aureolysin, respectively. Corresponding peptide sequences were identified in wound fluids from acute and non-healing ulcers, and notably, one peptide, FYT21 (FYTHVFRLKKWIQKVIDQFGE), was only present in wound fluid from non-healing ulcers colonized by P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. Our result is a proof of principle pointing at the possibility of defining peptide biomarkers reporting distinct proteolytic activities, of potential implication for improved diagnosis of wound healing and infection.

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

4.7
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