4.3 Article

Cerebrospinal fluid proteome comparison between multiple sclerosis patients and controls

期刊

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 90-96

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ane.12029

关键词

multiple sclerosis; cerebrospinal fluid; biomarkers; proteomics; label-free quantitative mass spectrometry; IgG; vitamin D-binding protein

资金

  1. Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Foundation
  2. National Program for Research in Functional Genomics (FUGE)
  3. Research Council of Norway
  4. Western Norway Regional Healthy Authority
  5. Leiv Eiriksson Mobility Program
  6. Meltzer Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives - The aim of the present study was to identify proteins in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with different abundance between patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and controls. Such proteins may be diagnostic biomarkers and contribute with novel information about the disease pathogenesis. Materials and methods - Cerebrospinal fluid from patients with RRMS (n = 17) and controls (n = 17) were trypsin digested and analyzed in a label-free fashion using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. The resulting data were analyzed using SearchGUI, PeptideShaker, and the Progenesis software. Results - Two hundred and ninety-one proteins were identified, of which 32 were significantly differentially abundant between the patients with RRMS and controls (P-value <= 0.05, two or more peptides quantified). Among these were proteins which previously have been linked to MS, including immunoglobulin subunits, vitamin D-binding protein, apolipoprotein D, kallikrein-6, neuronal pentraxin receptor, Dickkopf-related protein 3, and contactin-1. Conclusion - The study provides an overview of differentially abundant proteins between RRMS and controls, and a few of these are further discussed. It should be stressed that a larger verification study is needed to reveal the potential value of these proteins as biomarkers for RRMS and their involvement in the disease pathogenesis.

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