4.7 Review

Studying the Impact of Persistent Organic Pollutants Exposure on Human Health by Proteomic Analysis: A Systematic Review

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232214271

关键词

persistent organic pollutant; proteomics; hepatotoxicity; reprotoxicity; developmental toxicity; neurotoxicity; cardiotoxicity; immunotoxicity; endocrine disruptors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides a synthesis of knowledge of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) based on proteomics research and explores new features relevant to human health. However, much is still unknown about the mechanisms and molecular cellular responses involved in the adverse effects of these pollutants on human health.
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are organic chemical substances that are widely distributed in environments around the globe. POPs accumulate in living organisms and are found at high concentrations in the food chain. Humans are thus continuously exposed to these chemical substances, in which they exert hepatic, reproductive, developmental, behavioral, neurologic, endocrine, cardiovascular, and immunologic adverse health effects. However, considerable information is unknown regarding the mechanism by which POPs exert their adverse effects in humans, as well as the molecular and cellular responses involved. Data are notably lacking concerning the consequences of acute and chronic POP exposure on changes in gene expression, protein profile, and metabolic pathways. We conducted a systematic review to provide a synthesis of knowledge of POPs arising from proteomics-based research. The data source used for this review was PubMed. This study was carried out following the PRISMA guidelines. Of the 742 items originally identified, 89 were considered in the review. This review presents a comprehensive overview of the most recent research and available solutions to explore proteomics datasets to identify new features relevant to human health. Future perspectives in proteomics studies are discussed.

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