4.6 Article

Exploration of novel biomarkers for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy by comprehensive analysis of peptide fragments in blood: their potential and technologies supporting quantification

期刊

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2021-0713

关键词

disease biomarker; hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; peptidomics; quantitative proteomics

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [25462575/16K11111, 17K19734/17K19719/19K22681, 18KK0256]
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [17gk0110024h0001/17cm0106XXXh0001]
  3. Japan Science and Technology Agency [AS2311641F/19-191030923]
  4. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18KK0256] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the use of peptide fragments as potential disease biomarkers for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). It also provides an overview of the basic techniques of peptidomics, particularly quantitative proteomics, and outlines the current status and challenges of measuring peptides in blood as disease biomarkers for HDP.
Among the many complications associated with pregnancy, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) constitute one of the most important. Since the pathophysiology of HDP is complex, new disease biomarkers (DBMs) are needed to serve as indicators of disease activity. However, in the current status of laboratory medicine, despite the fact that blood pressure measurement has been used for a long time, not many DBMS contribute adequately to the subsequent diagnosis and treatment. In this article, we discuss studies focusing on peptide fragments in blood identified by comprehensive quantitative methods, among the currently proposed DBM candidates. Furthermore, we describe the basic techniques of peptidomics, especially quantitative proteomics, and outline the current status and challenges of measuring peptides in blood as DBM for HDP.

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