4.0 Article

Proteomic analysis in monocytes of antiphospholipid syndrome patients -: Deregulation of proteins related to the development of thrombosis

期刊

ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
卷 58, 期 9, 页码 2835-2844

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/art.23756

关键词

-

资金

  1. Junta de Andalucia of Spain [PI0014/06, PI0042/2007]
  2. Fundacion Progreso y Salud
  3. Junta de Andalucia of Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are closely related to the development of thrombosis, but the exact mechanism(s) leading to thrombotic events remains unknown. In this study, using proteomic techniques, we evaluated changes in protein expression of monocytes from patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) related to the pathophysiology of the syndrome. Methods. Fifty-one APS patients were included. They were divided into 2 groups: patients with previous thrombosis, and patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion. As controls, we studied patients with thrombosis but without aPL, and age- and sex-matched healthy subjects. Results. The proteins that were more significantly altered among monocytes from APS patients with thrombosis (annexin I, annexin II, protein disulfide isomerase, Nedd8, RhoA proteins, and Hsp60) were functionally related to the induction of a procoagulant state as well as to autoimmune-related responses. Proteins reported to be connected to recurrent spontaneous abortion (e.g., fibrinogen and hemoglobin) were also determined to be significantly deregulated in APS patients without thrombosis. In vitro treatment with IgG fractions purified from the plasma of APS patients with thrombosis changed the pattern of protein expression of normal monocytes in the same way that was observed in vivo for monocytes from APS patients with thrombosis. Conclusion. For the first time, proteomic analysis has identified novel proteins that may be involved in the pathogenic mechanisms of APS, thus providing potential new targets for pathogenesis-based therapies for the 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

4.0
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