4.7 Article

Aberrant Epicardial Adipose Tissue Extracellular Matrix Remodeling in Patients with Severe Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Insight from Comparative Quantitative Proteomics

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep43787

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81370201, 81600188, 81370264]
  2. National key Scientific Instrument Special Program of China [2013YQ0309230607]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2042016kf0074]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is ample evidence indicating that epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) volume and thickness is positively associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the exact pathological changes in the human EAT after myocardial ischemia remains largely unclear. In the current study, we applied a comparative quantitative proteomics to elucidate the altered biological processes in the EAT of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients. A total of 1649 proteins were successfully quantified in our study, among which 165 proteins were significantly changed (ratio < 0.8 or > 1.2 fold and p < 0.05 in both repetitions) in EAT of ICM individuals. Gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis revealed that cardiac structure and cellular metabolism were over-represented among these regulated proteins. The hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, adrenergic signaling in cardiomyocytes, extracellular matrix (ECM)-receptor interaction, phagosome, Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis, and PPAR signaling pathway were highlighted by the KEGG PATHWAY analysis. More importantly, we found that the proteins responsible for extracellular matrix organization were dramatically increased in EAT of ICM patients. In addition, the picrosirius red (PSR) staining results showed that the collagen fiber content was prominently increased, which indicated the EAT of ICM individuals underwent extracellular matrix remodeling and ERK1/2 activation maybe responsible for these pathological changes partially.

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