4.2 Article

Differential proteomics analysis of female and male adults of Angiostrongylus cantonensis

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 131, 期 2, 页码 169-174

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2012.03.019

关键词

Angiostrongylus cantonensis; Differential proteomics; Two-dimensional fluorescence difference gel electrophoresis; Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry

资金

  1. The National Natural Science Foundation of China [30972575, 30800963]
  2. The Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Provincial Key Project [Z2100950]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we identified the differentially expressed proteins of female and male adults of Angiostrongylus cantonensis through differential proteomics. We extracted and purified total proteins from male and female adults, separated proteins by two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) in pH 47, analyzed the gel images by DeCyder 7.0 software, and sacrificed the infected rats to count the number of male and female adults. It was found 28 protein spots that were differentially expressed; seven protein spots were then identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Five proteins were up-regulated and two proteins down-regulated in male adults compared with female adults. Three of the five up-regulated proteins with known functions ascribed to them were identified as galectin-1, proteasome alpha subunit and peroxiredoxin. The two down-regulated proteins were identified as indoleamine dioxygenase like-myoglobin and galectin. Furthermore, the female was significantly greater than male adults (P < 0.01) in the rats. The findings demonstrate the differences in protein expression profiles and the ability to survive in the final host between female and male adults of A. cantonensis, and may provide a theoretical basis to study their developmental biology further. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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