应用蛋白质组学的方法筛选胰腺干细胞标记物

探索利用蛋白质组学的方法筛选胰腺干细胞的标记物.通过大鼠胰腺大部分切除(Px)的方法建立胰腺增生模型,采用双向电泳(2DE)分离比较Px术后第3天大鼠增生胰腺组织与假手术(Sx)非增生胰腺组织蛋白质的表达谱差异,用基质辅助激光解吸离子化飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF-MS)和肽质量指纹图谱(PMF)的方法对差异蛋白进行鉴定,进一步经生物信息学检索,筛选与胚胎发育和细胞分化相关的蛋白质分子.蛋白质印迹分析蛋白质HSP47、Vimentin在Px大鼠胰腺组织中的表达,以验证2DE的结果.2DE显示Sx和Px大鼠胰腺组织平均蛋白质点数分别为(1369±31)和(1315±28)个,其中共有91个蛋白质点出现1.5倍以上的表达差异.所有差异蛋白质点PMF鉴定出53种蛋白质,其中Vimentin,cytokeratin8(CK8),lymphocytecytosolicprotein1(L-plastin),heterogeneousnuclearribonucleoproteinA2/B1(hnRNPA2/B1)和L-arginine:glycineamidinotransferase(AGAT)与胚胎发育和细胞分化有关,这些蛋白质可能是胰腺干细胞潜在的候选标记物.总之,蛋白质组学的方法利用其高通量的特点能有效发现潜在的胰腺干细胞生物学标记物.     

蛋白质组学技术及其在肺脏疾病研究中的应用

蛋白质组学是旨在研究蛋白质表达谱和蛋白质与蛋白质之间相互作用的新领域,其研究必须依赖高通量、高自动化的技术.简要介绍了蛋白质组分离技术(双向电泳、色谱),蛋白质组分析技术(质谱分析、氨基酸组成分析、蛋白质芯片,Edman降解法测N端序列),蛋白质相互作用技术(酵母双杂交系统、表面等离子共振)以及生物信息学.并从寻找差异表达的蛋白质,寻找用于诊断的疾病相关的标记分子,研究疾病的发病机制三方面介绍了蛋白质组技术在肺脏疾病研究中的应用.     

加拿大MRM Proteomics公司的质谱分析技术可以全面验证生物标记物

加拿大MRM Proteomics公司的CEO，AndrewMunk介绍了利用定量蛋白质组的生物标记物探索的优势。不必对每个生物标记物蛋白质准备检查用抗体，也不必将疾病生物标记物缩小到2～3个的范围。     

蛋白质组研究进展

蛋白质组研究技术是后基因组时代的重要研究手段.综述了流感嗜血杆菌、细菌、酵母、线虫、果蝇蛋白质组的研究进展以及蛋白质组研究技术在人类疾病研究中的应用.     

大鼠不同发育时期胰腺相关蛋白的差异表达

探讨大鼠胰腺不同发育时期相关蛋白的差异表达,应用显微技术分离了大鼠孕15.5天,孕18.5天胚胎胰腺和新生鼠及成年鼠的胰腺,提取其蛋白质后,用固相pH梯度双向聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳和质谱分析等蛋白质组学方法,得到了4个不同发育时期的蛋白质表达谱.对其中的6个在孕18.5天胚胎胰腺中有高丰度表达,而在成年鼠胰腺中缺失的蛋白质点,4个在成年胰腺中特异表达的蛋白质点, 8个在成年胰腺中表达明显下调的蛋白质点和1个在成年中表达上调的点,进行了肽质量指纹分析和蛋白质鉴定,共获得18个点的肽质量指纹图.经BIOWORK等软件搜索大鼠非冗余蛋白质数据库来鉴定其身份,发现其中7个点为大鼠甲胎蛋白（AFP）、5个点为胰脂酶相关蛋白1前体、1个点为微管蛋白β、2个点为蛋白二硫异构酶、1个为FLN29基因产物的类似物、1个为胰蛋白酶V-A前体、1个为过氧化物氧化还原酶4.其中AFP为特异表达于大鼠胚胎期及新生期胰腺的蛋白质,在孕18.5天的胰腺中表达量最高,在成年胰腺中极低表达.对它们的功能和与胚胎胰腺代谢调节功能完善过程的可能关系进行了初步探讨.     

线粒体蛋白质组研究的进展

应用蛋白质组技术已对正常人胎盘和大鼠肝线粒体蛋白质进行分离与鉴定,补充了线粒体蛋白质组数据库,并且通过比较蛋白质组学研究技术寻找病理条件下线粒体差异表达的蛋白质,为疾病的诊断和治疗提供作用靶标。随着蛋白质组技术的发展和完善,一些新方法也被应用于线粒体蛋白质的研究,推动了线粒体研究的发展。线粒体蛋白质组研究虽然已取得了一些成果,但线粒体蛋白质组数据库中的数据仍较匮乏,并且还有一些问题亟待解决和改善。     

尿蛋白质组学在疾病标志物研究中的应用

尿液是重要的疾病标志物来源. 本文介绍了当前尿蛋白质组学的研究进展和尿液中疾病标志物研究的主要问题, 并对未来的发展进行了展望. 由于实际的临床问题通常是对症状相似的多种疾病进行鉴别诊断, 仅仅比较某一种疾病组和健康人对照组的尿蛋白质组差异不足以找到具有诊断能力的标志物. 另外, 尿蛋白质组在个体间和同一个体的不同生理条件下的变化也为疾病标志物的寻找带来了困难. 本文提出, 进行正常人群个体间和不同生理条件下尿蛋白质变化范围的研究可以为鉴定疾病标志物提供参考标准, 从而帮助研究者发现由疾病、而不是生理学差异引起的蛋白的变化. 比较蛋白在血浆和尿液中丰度的变化可以揭示肾脏的生理学功能和发现疾病标志物. 最后提出, 建立一个数据共享平台, 收集和整合已有的疾病标志物研发成果, 将大大推动尿蛋白质组研究的发展.     

iTRAQ标记技术与差异蛋白质组学的生物标志物研究

结合多维液相色谱和串联质谱分析,iTRAQ技术已成为差异蛋白质组学定量研究的主要工具之一。而寻找和发现区别于正常生理状态下的疾病特异表达蛋白质,有利于阐明疾病的发病机理,对疾病的预防、诊断、预后和疗效监测具有重要作用,并有助于用作新靶点来开发临床治疗药物。本文重点就该技术在医学领域中进行差异蛋白质组分析并寻找标记蛋白质的研究进行综述。     

蛋白质组学技术在感染研究中的应用

蛋白质组学的目标在于阐明特定生物体、组织、细胞或亚细胞结构中全部蛋白质的表达模式和功能模式,其技术平台由高通量的蛋白质分离技术、鉴定技术和生物信息学组成。在许多研究领域,蛋白质组学技术为阐明疾病过程和生命现象的分子机制提供了全面、网络和动态的蛋白质组信息。感染是重要的基本致病因素之一,蛋白质组学的研究策略和技术方法有利于快速分离鉴定病原体蛋白质组、宿主免疫细胞蛋白质组、感染相关蛋白、疫苗候：选抗原蛋白、生物标志物和药物靶标,从而明显加快病原体、宿主反应、感染发病机制以及感染预防、诊断和治疗等相关研究的进程。     

应用蛋白质组学和RNAi技术筛选鼻咽癌细胞中p53功能相关蛋白质

为了阐明鼻咽癌中高表达的p53蛋白聚集与失活的机制,高通量地检测与p53功能相关的蛋白质,首先采用RNA干扰(RNAi)技术稳定沉默鼻咽癌细胞系CNE2的p53基因表达,然后用蛋白质组技术研究稳定沉默该基因对鼻咽癌蛋白质表达谱的影响.通过对稳定干扰p53基因后鼻咽癌细胞系CNE2的蛋白质表达谱改变的研究,用基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF-MS)分析和电喷雾串联质谱(ESI-Q-TOF-MS)验证鉴定了22个差异表达蛋白质.在这些差异表达蛋白质中,有些是已经报道的p53功能相关蛋白质,如热休克蛋白27(HSP27)、异质性胞核核糖核蛋白K(hnRNPK)、14-3-3σ等,其他可能是新的p53功能相关蛋白质,如eIF4B、TPT1、hnRNPH3、SFRS1等.部分差异表达蛋白质如HSP27、14-3-3σ和GRP75经蛋白质印迹分析技术进行了验证,同时pcDNA3.1-FLAG-p53质粒转染CNE2细胞引起了HSP27、14-3-3σ表达下调,GRP75表达上调.在鼻咽癌细胞中鉴定的22个差异表达蛋白质大致可以分为5类,包括信号传导相关蛋白质、分子伴侣、与转录和翻译相关蛋白质、代谢相关蛋白和细胞结构相关蛋白质,涉及到细胞周期的调控、分子基因表达调控、细胞黏附、细胞代谢等众多事件,它们可能作为p53功能相关蛋白质,为阐明鼻咽癌中p53蛋白聚集及失活的机制提供了重要依据和线索.     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor