4.5 Article

Transcriptional profiling and targeted proteomics reveals common molecular changes associated with cigarette smoke-induced lung emphysema development in five susceptible mouse strains

期刊

INFLAMMATION RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 471-486

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00011-015-0820-2

关键词

Emphysema; Cigarette smoke; Systems biology; Mouse models; Gene expression; Molecular mechanisms

资金

  1. Philip Morris International

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mouse models are useful for studying cigarette smoke (CS)-induced chronic pulmonary pathologies such as lung emphysema. To enhance translation of large-scale omics data from mechanistic studies into pathophysiological changes, we have developed computational tools based on reverse causal reasoning (RCR). In the present study we applied a systems biology approach leveraging RCR to identify molecular mechanistic explanations of pathophysiological changes associated with CS-induced lung emphysema in susceptible mice. The lung transcriptomes of five mouse models (C57BL/6, ApoE (-/-) , A/J, CD1, and Nrf2 (-/-) ) were analyzed following 5-7 months of CS exposure. We predicted 39 molecular changes mostly related to inflammatory processes including known key emphysema drivers such as NF-kappa B and TLR4 signaling, and increased levels of TNF-alpha, CSF2, and several interleukins. More importantly, RCR predicted potential molecular mechanisms that are less well-established, including increased transcriptional activity of PU.1, STAT1, C/EBP, FOXM1, YY1, and N-COR, and reduced protein abundance of ITGB6 and CFTR. We corroborated several predictions using targeted proteomic approaches, demonstrating increased abundance of CSF2, C/EBP alpha, C/EBP beta, PU.1, BRCA1, and STAT1. These systems biology-derived candidate mechanisms common to susceptible mouse models may enhance understanding of CS-induced molecular processes underlying emphysema development in mice and their relevancy for human chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

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