4.7 Article

Coupled transcriptome and proteome analysis of human lymphotropic tumor viruses: insights on the detection and discovery of viral genes

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-12-625

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NCI [P01 CA022443, CA133027, CA070723, CA136363, CA120726]
  2. NIH National Center for Research Resources [RR018522]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-76RLO 1830]
  4. American Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) are related human tumor viruses that cause primary effusion lymphomas (PEL) and Burkitt's lymphomas (BL), respectively. Viral genes expressed in naturally-infected cancer cells contribute to disease pathogenesis; knowing which viral genes are expressed is critical in understanding how these viruses cause cancer. To evaluate the expression of viral genes, we used high-resolution separation and mass spectrometry coupled with custom tiling arrays to align the viral proteomes and transcriptomes of three PEL and two BL cell lines under latent and lytic culture conditions. Results: The majority of viral genes were efficiently detected at the transcript and/or protein level on manipulating the viral life cycle. Overall the correlation of expressed viral proteins and transcripts was highly complementary in both validating and providing orthogonal data with latent/lytic viral gene expression. Our approach also identified novel viral genes in both KSHV and EBV, and extends viral genome annotation. Several previously uncharacterized genes were validated at both transcript and protein levels. Conclusions: This systems biology approach coupling proteome and transcriptome measurements provides a comprehensive view of viral gene expression that could not have been attained using each methodology independently. Detection of viral proteins in combination with viral transcripts is a potentially powerful method for establishing virus-disease relationships.

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