4.0 Article

Investigation of differentially expressed proteins in rat gastrocnemius muscle during denervation-reinnervation

期刊

JOURNAL OF MUSCLE RESEARCH AND CELL MOTILITY
卷 27, 期 3-4, 页码 241-250

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10974-006-9067-4

关键词

skeletal muscle proteins; peripheral nerve crush; two-dimensional gel electrophoresis; matrix-assisted laser desorption; ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To have a better insight into the molecular events involved in denervation-induced atrophy and reinnervation-induced regeneration of skeletal muscles, it is important to investigate the changes in expression levels of a great multitude of muscle proteins during the process of denervation-reinnervation. In this study, we employed an experimental model of rat sciatic nerve crush to examine the differentially expressed proteins in the rat gastrocnemius muscle at different time points (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 weeks) after sciatic nerve crush by using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) followed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS), collectively referred to as the modern proteomic analysis. The results showed that 16 proteins in the rat gastrocnemius muscle exhibited two distinct types of change pattern in their relative abundance: (1) The relative expression levels of 11 proteins (including alpha actin, myosin heavy chain, etc.)were decreased either within 1 or 2 weeks post-sciatic nerve injury, followed by restoration during the ensuing days until 4 weeks. (2) The other 5 proteins (including alpha enolase, beta enolase, signal peptide peptidase-like 3, etc.) displayed an up-regulation in their relative expression levels within 1 week following sciatic nerve injury, and a subsequent gradual decrease in their relative expression levels until 4 weeks. Moreover, the significance of the changes in expression levels of the 16 proteins during denervation-reinnervation has been selectively discussed.

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

4.0
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