4.4 Article

Serum protein patterns in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus -: influence of diabetic environment and family history of diabetes

期刊

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 148-154

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.789

关键词

SELDI-TOF MS; type 2 diabetes mellitus; human serum protein profiling; albumin; apolipoprotein C3; transthyretin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Individuals with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) represent heterogeneous groups with differences in beta-cell function and genetic background. The aim of the present study was to compare serum protein profiles of NGT and T2DM individuals and determine the influence of the genetic background versus diabetic environment on differentially displayed proteins. Methods Surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS) was used to compare serum protein profiles of NGT persons and T2DM patients. All participants were from the Stockholm Diabetes Prevention Program (SDPP) cohort. They were selected to have high or low beta-cell function (HOMA-beta) and family history of type 2 diabetes (FHD) or not. Results Eight proteins were found to be elevated and five lowered (p < 0.05) in serum of T2DM patients. In a second comparison, the NGT and T2DM groups were divided into persons with FHD and low HOMA-beta and those without FHD and high HOMA-beta. Three proteins were rediscovered and interpreted to be different due to genetic background. Two of these were identified as apolipoprotein C3 (apoC3) and albumin. Ten proteins were interpreted to be not related to FHD, and one of these was identified as transthyretin. Conclusions Using the SELDI-technique, serum protein profiles of NGT and T2DM persons with differences in beta-cell function and FHD were compared. The diabetic environment had a major influence on most of these proteins, while FHD was an important factor for apoC3 and albumin. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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