4.7 Article

Comparative proteome analysis of the tegument of male and female adult Schistosoma mansoni

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11645-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Social Fund [ESF/14-BM-A55-0037/16]
  2. European Regional Development Fund
  3. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000759]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared the differences in tegument proteins between adult female and male Schistosoma worms and found that these proteins play different roles in cellular processes, antioxidant mechanisms, phosphorylation, and signal transduction. These findings contribute to understanding the strategies used by the two sexes of worms to evade the host's immune system.
The tegument, as the surface layer of adult male and female Schistosoma spp. represents the protective barrier of the worms to the hostile environment of the host bloodstream. Here we present the first comparative analysis of sex-specific tegument proteins of paired or virgin Schistosoma mansoni. We applied a new and highly sensitive workflow, allowing detection of even low abundance proteins. Therefore, a streptavidin-biotin affinity purification technique in combination with single pot solid-phase enhanced sample preparation was established for subsequent LC-MS/MS analysis. We were able to identify 1519 tegument proteins for male and female virgin and paired worms and categorized them by sex. Bioinformatic analysis revealed an involvement of female-specific tegument proteins in signaling pathways of cellular processes and antioxidant mechanisms. Male-specific proteins were found to be enriched in processes linked to phosphorylation and signal transduction. This suggests a task sharing between the sexes that might be necessary for survival in the host. Our datasets provide a basis for further studies to understand and ultimately decipher the strategies of the two worm sexes to evade the immune system.

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