4.6 Article

Proteomics of acquired pellicle in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with or without erosive tooth wear

期刊

JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 64-69

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.12.007

关键词

Acquired enamel pellicle; Erosive tooth wear; Gastroesophageal reflux; Proteomics

资金

  1. FAPESP [2014/26606-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This in vivo study compared the protein profile of the acquired enamel pellicle (AEP) in volunteers 1) with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive tooth wear (ETW) (BEWE >= 9; GE group); 2) with GERD without ETW (BEWE = 0; GNE group) and 3) control (without GERD and BEWE = 0; C group). Materials and methods: Twenty-four subjects (8/group) participated. AEP was formed during 120 min and collected. After protein extraction, the samples were submitted to reverse phase liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. Label-free proteomic quantification was performed using Protein Lynx Global Service software. Results: In total, 458 proteins were identified. Seventy-six proteins were common to all the groups. The proteomic profile of the AEP was quite different among the distinct groups. The numbers of proteins exclusively found in the C, GE and GNE groups were 113, 110 and 81, respectively. Most of the proteins exclusively identified in the C and GNE groups bind metals, while those in the GE group are mainly membrane proteins. Many proteins were found exclusively in the reflux groups. In the quantitative analyses, when the GNE group was compared with the GE group, the proteins with the highest decreases were Lysozyme C, Antileukoproteinase, Cathepsin G, Neutrophil defensins and Basic salivary proline-rich proteins, while those with the highest increases were subunits of Hemoglobin, Albumin and isoforms of Cystatin. Conclusion: Profound alterations in the proteomic profile of the AEP were seen in GNE compared with GE volunteers, which might play a role in the resistance to ETW seen in the first.

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