4.3 Article

Proteomic characterization of human exhaled breath condensate

期刊

JOURNAL OF BREATH RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1752-7163/aa9e71

关键词

exhaled breath condensate; proteomics; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. CEA Toxicologie program
  2. Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives
  3. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)
  4. French National Research Agency [ANR-15-IDEX-02]
  5. 'Investissement d'Avenir Infrastructures Nationales en Biologie et Sante' program (ProFI project) [ANR-10- INBS-08]
  6. COST Action CliniMark [CA16113]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To improve biomedical knowledge and to support biomarker discovery studies, it is essential to establish comprehensive proteome maps for human tissues and biofluids, and to make them publicly accessible. In this study, we performed an in-depth proteomics characterization of exhaled breath condensate (EBC), a sample obtained non-invasively by condensation of exhaled air that contains submicron droplets of airway lining fluid. Two pooled samples of EBC, each obtained from 10 healthy donors, were processed using a straightforward protocol based on sample lyophilization, in-gel digestion and liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry analysis. Two 'technical' control samples were processed in parallel to the pooled samples to correct for exogenous protein contamination. Atotal of 229 unique proteins were identified in EBC among which 153 proteins were detected in both EBC pooled samples. A detailed bioinformatics analysis of these 153 proteins showed that most of the proteins identified corresponded to proteins secreted in the respiratory tract (lung, bronchi). Eight proteins were salivary proteins. Our dataset is described and has been made accessible through the ProteomeXchange database (dataset identifier: PXD007591) and is expected to be useful for future MS-based biomarker studies using EBC as the diagnostic specimen.

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

4.3
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