4.7 Article

Lifetime proteomic profiling of an A30P α-synuclein Drosophila model of Parkinson's disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 9, 页码 3729-3738

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr0700504

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Drosophila; alpha-synuclein; proteomics; liquid chromatography; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01-AG-024547] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A survey of the proteome changes in an A30P alpha-synuclein Drosophila model of Parkinson's disease (PD) in comparison to age-matched controls is presented for seven different ages across the adult lifespan. The data were acquired by a shotgun proteomic approach that involves multidimensional liquid chromatographies coupled to mass spectrometry and database searching techniques. Semi-quantitative analysis to assess relative changes in protein expression between the Drosophila PD model and age-matched controls provides evidence that 28, 19, 12, 5, 7, 23, and 17 proteins are significantly differentially expressed at days 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60, respectively. From the experimental approach employed, it appears that most dysregulated proteins are associated with narrow distributions of ages, such that disease-associated differences change substantially across the lifespan. Previous measurements [J. Proteorn Res. 2007, 6, 348] at days 1, 10, and 30 showed dysregulation of actin cytoskeletal proteins at day 1 and mitochondrial proteins at day 10, suggesting that defects in the actin cytoskeleton and the mitochondria are associated with dopaminergic neuron degeneration in PD. Analysis of the day 20, 40, 50, and 60 animals supports the finding that these cytoskeletal and mitochondrial changes predominate in the youngest (pre-symtomatic and early disease stages) animals. Although studies across many time points appear to be important for characterizing disease state, an understanding of molecular changes at the youngest ages should be most important for addressing causation.

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