4.7 Article

Proteomics-Based Identification of Retinal Protein Networks Impacted by Elevated Intraocular Pressure in the Hypertonic Saline Injection Model of Experimental Glaucoma

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241612592

关键词

retina proteomics; glaucoma; ocular hypertension; Brown Norway rat model; bioinformatics; pathway analysis; protein networks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates changes in the retina proteome induced by elevated intraocular pressure in a rat model of glaucoma. The findings reveal various aspects of glaucomatous pathophysiology through protein interaction networks and pathway analyses.
Elevated intraocular pressure is considered a major cause of glaucomatous retinal neurodegeneration. To facilitate a better understanding of the underlying molecular processes and mechanisms, we report a study focusing on alterations of the retina proteome by induced ocular hypertension in a rat model of the disease. Glaucomatous processes were modeled through sclerosing the aqueous outflow routes of the eyes by hypertonic saline injections into an episcleral vein. Mass spectrometry-based quantitative retina proteomics using a label-free shotgun methodology identified over 200 proteins significantly affected by ocular hypertension. Various facets of glaucomatous pathophysiology were revealed through the organization of the findings into protein interaction networks and by pathway analyses. Concentrating on retinal neurodegeneration as a characteristic process of the disease, elevated intraocular pressure-induced alterations in the expression of selected proteins were verified by targeted proteomics based on nanoflow liquid chromatography coupled with nano-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry using the parallel reaction monitoring method of data acquisition. Acquired raw data are shared through deposition to the ProteomeXchange Consortium (PXD042729), making a retina proteomics dataset on the selected animal model of glaucoma available for the first time.

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