BACKGROUND: Functional development of the prostate is governed by stromal mesenchyme induction and epithelial response. Stromal/epithelial signaling can be mediated through direct cell-cell contact and diffusible factors and their cell surface receptors. These inducers are likely secreted or membrane-associated extracellular proteins. Given the importance of intercellular communication, it is possible that diseases like cancer could arise from a loss of this communication. One approach to gain a molecular understanding of stromal cells is to identify, as a first step, secreted stromal signaling factors. We proposed to do this by comparative analysis between bladder and prostate. METHODS: Secreted proteins were identified from cultured normal prostate and bladder stromal mesenchyme cells by glycopeptide-capture method followed by mass spectrometry. Differences in protein abundance between prostate and bladder were quantified from calculated peptide ion current area (PICA) followed by Western validation. Functional and pathway analyses of the proteins were carried out by Gene Ontology (GO) and Teranode software. RESULTS: This analysis produced a list of 116 prostate and 84 bladder secreted glycoproteins with ProteinProphet probability scores > or =0.9. Stromal proteins upregulated in the prostate include cathepsin L, follistatin-related protein, neuroendocrine convertase, tumor necrosis factor receptor, and others that are known to be involved in signal transduction, extracellular matrix interaction, differentiation and transport. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a number of potential proteins for stromal signaling and bladder or prostate differentiation program. The prostate stromal/epithelial signaling may be accomplished through activation of the ECM-receptor interaction, complement and coagulation cascades, focal adhesion and cell adhesion pathways. Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Functional development of the prostate is governed by stromal mesenchyme induction and epithelial response. Stromal/epithelial signaling can be mediated through direct cell-cell contact and diffusible factors and their cell surface receptors. These inducers are likely secreted or membrane-associated extracellular proteins. Given the importance of intercellular communication, it is possible that diseases like cancer could arise from a loss of this communication. One approach to gain a molecular understanding of stromal cells is to identify, as a first step, secreted stromal signaling factors. We proposed to do this by comparative analysis between bladder and prostate. METHODS: Secreted proteins were identified from cultured normal prostate and bladder stromal mesenchyme cells by glycopeptide-capture method followed by mass spectrometry. Differences in protein abundance between prostate and bladder were quantified from calculated peptide ion current area (PICA) followed by Western validation. Functional and pathway analyses of the proteins were carried out by Gene Ontology (GO) and Teranode software. RESULTS: This analysis produced a list of 116 prostate and 84 bladder secreted glycoproteins with ProteinProphet probability scores > or =0.9. Stromal proteins upregulated in the prostate include cathepsin L, follistatin-related protein, neuroendocrine convertase, tumor necrosis factor receptor, and others that are known to be involved in signal transduction, extracellular matrix interaction, differentiation and transport. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a number of potential proteins for stromal signaling and bladder or prostate differentiation program. The prostate stromal/epithelial signaling may be accomplished through activation of the ECM-receptor interaction, complement and coagulation cascades, focal adhesion and cell adhesion pathways. Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Shona H Lang; Joel Smith; Catherine Hyde; Catherine Macintosh; Michael Stower; Norman J Maitland Journal: In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.416
Authors: Alexander Scherl; Scott A Shaffer; Gregory K Taylor; Hemantha D Kulasekara; Samuel I Miller; David R Goodlett Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2008-01-23 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Bernadette Daly-Burns; Tahirah N Alam; Alan Mackay; Jeremy Clark; Christopher J Shepherd; Siân Rizzo; Roger Tatoud; Michael J O'Hare; John R Masters; David L Hudson Journal: Differentiation Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.880
Authors: X Dong-Le Bourhis; Y Berthois; G Millot; A Degeorges; M Sylvi; P M Martin; F Calvo Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1997-03-28 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Laura E Pascal; Lawrence D True; David S Campbell; Eric W Deutsch; Michael Risk; Ilsa M Coleman; Lillian J Eichner; Peter S Nelson; Alvin Y Liu Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Eneida F Vêncio; Laura E Pascal; Laura S Page; Gareth Denyer; Amy J Wang; Hannele Ruohola-Baker; Shile Zhang; Kai Wang; David J Galas; Alvin Y Liu Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: Laura E Pascal; Young Ah Goo; Ricardo Zn Vêncio; Laura S Page; Amber A Chambers; Emily S Liebeskind; Thomas K Takayama; Lawrence D True; Alvin Y Liu Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Brook L Nunn; Jocelyn R Aker; Scott A Shaffer; Shannon Tsai; Robert F Strzepek; Philip W Boyd; Theodore Larson Freeman; Mitchell Brittnacher; Lars Malmström; David R Goodlett Journal: Aquat Microb Ecol Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Elizabeth A Vitello; Sue-Ing Quek; Heather Kincaid; Thomas Fuchs; Daniel J Crichton; Pamela Troisch; Alvin Y Liu Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-08-02