4.7 Review

Current Insights on the Impact of Proteomics in Respiratory Allergies

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23105703

关键词

proteomics; biomarkers; mass spectrometry; allergy; asthma; allergic rhinitis; aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease; Pollen Food Allergic Syndrome; nasal polyps; airway inflammation

资金

  1. National Institute of Respiratory Diseases Ismael Cosio Villegas, Mexico City

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory allergies have a significant impact on human health worldwide. The study of these allergies requires new technologies, such as proteomics, which can enable early and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Proteomics has been applied to identify and analyze proteins using mass spectrometry, leading to advancements in diagnosing and treating respiratory allergic diseases.
Respiratory allergies affect humans worldwide, causing extensive morbidity and mortality. They include allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma, pollen food allergy syndrome (PFAS), aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), and nasal polyps (NPs). The study of respiratory allergic diseases requires new technologies for early and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Omics technologies provide the tools required to investigate DNA, RNA, proteins, and other molecular determinants. These technologies include genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. However, proteomics is one of the main approaches to studying allergic disorders' pathophysiology. Proteins are used to indicate normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention. In this field, the principal goal of proteomics has been to discover new proteins and use them in precision medicine. Multiple technologies have been applied to proteomics, but that most used for identifying, quantifying, and profiling proteins is mass spectrometry (MS). Over the last few years, proteomics has enabled the establishment of several proteins for diagnosing and treating respiratory allergic diseases.

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