4.5 Article

Identification of Proteins in Promastigote and Amastigote-like Leishmania Using an Immunoproteomic Approach

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001430

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pro-Reitoria de Pesquisa (PRPq)
  2. UFMG [Edital 07/2010]
  3. FAPEMIG [CBB-APQ-01322-08]
  4. CNPq [APQ-577483/2008-0]
  5. National Institute of Science and Technology for Vaccines (INCTV)
  6. National Institute of Science and Technology in Nanobiofarmaceutica (INCT-nanoBIOFAR)
  7. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The present study aims to identify antigens in protein extracts of promastigote and amastigote-like Leishmania (Leishmania) chagasi syn. L. (L.) infantum recognized by antibodies present in the sera of dogs with asymptomatic and symptomatic visceral leishmaniasis (VL). Methodology/Principal Findings: Proteins recognized by sera samples were separated by two-dimensional electrophoresis (2DE) and identified by mass spectrometry. A total of 550 spots were observed in the 2DE gels, and approximately 104 proteins were identified. Several stage-specific proteins could be identified by either or both classes of sera, including, as expected, previously known proteins identified as diagnosis, virulence factors, drug targets, or vaccine candidates. Three, seven, and five hypothetical proteins could be identified in promastigote antigenic extracts; while two, eleven, and three hypothetical proteins could be identified in amastigote-like antigenic extracts by asymptomatic and symptomatic sera, as well as a combination of both, respectively. Conclusions/Significance: The present study represents a significant contribution not only in identifying stage-specific L. infantum molecules, but also in revealing the expression of a large number of hypothetical proteins. Moreover, when combined, the identified proteins constitute a significant source of information for the improvement of diagnostic tools and/or vaccine development to VL.

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

4.5
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