4.5 Article

Multi-Study Proteomic and Bioinformatic Identification of Molecular Overlap between Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA)

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci8120212

关键词

spinal muscular atrophy (SMA); amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); proteomics; bioinformatics; endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi trafficking; ER-Golgi trafficking; calreticulin (CALR); endoplasmic reticulum; calcium

资金

  1. Newlife Charity [SG/15-16/11]
  2. Keele University ACORN
  3. Euan MacDonald Centre for Motor Neuron Disease Research
  4. UK SMA Research Consortium (SMA Trust)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unravelling the complex molecular pathways responsible for motor neuron degeneration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) remains a persistent challenge. Interest is growing in the potential molecular similarities between these two diseases, with the hope of better understanding disease pathology for the guidance of therapeutic development. The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of published proteomic studies of ALS and SMA, seeking commonly dysregulated molecules to be prioritized as future therapeutic targets. Fifteen proteins were found to be differentially expressed in two or more proteomic studies of both ALS and SMA, and bioinformatics analysis identified over-representation of proteins known to associate in vesicles and molecular pathways, including metabolism of proteins and vesicle-mediated transport-both of which converge on endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-Golgi trafficking processes. Calreticulin, a calcium-binding chaperone found in the ER, was associated with both pathways and we independently confirm that its expression was decreased in spinal cords from SMA and increased in spinal cords from ALS mice. Together, these findings offer significant insights into potential common targets that may help to guide the development of new therapies for both 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

4.5
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