4.3 Article

Proteomic analysis of the winter-protected phenotype of hibernating ground squirrel intestine

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00418.2007

关键词

13-lined ground squirrel; ischemia-reperfusion; mucosa; Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intestine of hibernating ground squirrels is protected against damage by ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury. This resistance does not depend on the low body temperature of torpor; rather, it is exhibited during natural interbout arousals that periodically return hibernating animals to euthermia. Here we use fluorescence two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (DIGE) to identify protein spot differences in intestines of 13-lined ground squirrels in the sensitive and protected phases of the circannual hibernation cycle, comparing sham-treated control animals with those exposed to I/R. Protein spot differences distinguished the sham-treated summer and hibernating samples, as well as the response to I/R between summer and hibernating intestines. The majority of protein changes among these groups were attributed to a seasonal difference between summer and winter hibernators. Many of the protein spots that differed were unambiguously identified by high-pressure liquid chromatography followed by tandem mass spectrometry of their constituent peptides. Western blot analysis confirmed significant upregulation for three of the proteins, albumin, apolipoprotein A-I, and ubiquitin hydrolase L1, that were identified in the DIGE analysis as increased in sham-treated hibernating squirrels compared with sham-treated summer squirrels. This study identifies several candidate proteins that may contribute to hibernation-induced protection of the gut during natural torpor-arousal cycles and experimental I/R injury. It also reveals the importance of enterocytematuration in defining the hibernating gut proteome and the role of changing cell populations for the differences between sham and I/R-treated summer animals.

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