4.1 Article

The differential plasma proteome of obese and overweight individuals undergoing a nutritional weight loss and maintenance intervention

期刊

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.201600150

关键词

Biomarker; Diabetes; Large-scale study; Mass spectrometry; Obesity

资金

  1. European Commission Food Quality and Safety Priority of the Sixth Framework Program [FP6-2005-513946]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The nutritional intervention program DiOGenes focuses on how obesity can be prevented and treated from a dietary perspective. We generated differential plasma proteome profiles in the DiOGenes cohort to identify proteins associated with weight loss and maintenance and explore their relation to body mass index, fat mass, insulin resistance, and sensitivity. Experimental design: Relative protein quantification was obtained at baseline and after combined weight loss/maintenance phases using isobaric tagging and MS/MS. A Welch t-test determined proteins differentially present after intervention. Protein relationships with clinical variables were explored using univariate linear models, considering collection center, gender and age as confounding factors. Results: Four hundred and seventy three subjects were measured at baseline and end of the intervention; 39 proteins were longitudinally differential. Proteins with largest changes were sex hormone-binding globulin, adiponectin, C-reactive protein, calprotectin, serum amyloid A, and proteoglycan 4 (PRG4), whose association with obesity and weight loss is known. We identified new putative biomarkers for weight loss/maintenance. Correlation between PRG4 and proline-rich acidic protein 1 variation and Matsuda insulin sensitivity increment was showed. Conclusion and clinical relevance: MS-based proteomic analysis of a large cohort of non-diabetic overweight and obese individuals concomitantly identified known and novel proteins associated with weight loss and maintenance.

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

4.1
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