4.7 Article

Comprehensive and quantitative proteomic analyses of zebrafish plasma reveals conserved protein profiles between genders and between zebrafish and human

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep24329

关键词

-

资金

  1. Singapore National Research Foundation under its Environmental and Water Technologies Strategic Research Programme [R-154-000-328-272]
  2. National Medical Research Council of Singapore [R-154-000-547-511]
  3. NRF Singapore under its NRF (EWT) PhD Scholarship Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Omic approaches have been increasingly used in the zebrafish model for holistic understanding of molecular events and mechanisms of tissue functions. However, plasma is rarely used for omic profiling because of the technical challenges in collecting sufficient blood. In this study, we employed two mass spectrometric (MS) approaches for a comprehensive characterization of zebrafish plasma proteome, i.e. conventional shotgun liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for an overview study and quantitative SWATH (Sequential Window Acquisition of all THeoretical fragmention spectra) for comparison between genders. 959 proteins were identified in the shotgun profiling with estimated concentrations spanning almost five orders of magnitudes. Other than the presence of a few highly abundant female egg yolk precursor proteins (vitellogenins), the proteomic profiles of male and female plasmas were very similar in both number and abundance and there were basically no other highly gender-biased proteins. The types of plasma proteins based on IPA (Ingenuity Pathway Analysis) classification and tissue sources of production were also very similar. Furthermore, the zebrafish plasma proteome shares significant similarities with human plasma proteome, in particular in top abundant proteins including apolipoproteins and complements. Thus, the current study provided a valuable dataset for future evaluation of plasma proteins in zebrafish.

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