PURPOSE: We analyzed the change in protein expression of tear film proteins in dry eye (DE) and non-DE (NDE) patients using isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) technology. METHODS: We categorized 24 participants into NDE, and mild (MDE), moderate-to-severe (MSDE), and mixed (MXDE) DE on the basis of clinical DE tests. Tear samples (n = 6 subjects/group) were collected using Schirmer's strips. Proteins were extracted from strips and were quantified using the Bradford assay. Protein from each sample was pooled as internal standard (IS), and 20 μg protein from each sample and the IS were digested and labeled with different tandem mass tag (TMT) isobaric mass tag labeling reagent. The reaction was quenched and the labeled peptides were mixed. Samples were injected for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) analysis on the Orbitrap mass spectrometer. Bioinformatic analyses were performed using protein information resource (PIR). RESULTS: Combined results showed a total of 386 proteins in tears as determined by the iTRAQ experiments. An average of 163 proteins was detected in each of 6 biologic replicates. Of those, 55% were detected 6 times and 90% were detected multiple times (>2). In addition to the down-regulation of commonly reported proteins, such as lipocalin-1, lysozyme, and prolactin-inducible protein across all sub groups of DE, a number of proteins were significantly differentially regulated in MSDE and other subgroups of DE. A greater number of proteins were down-regulated in MSDE versus MDE, and the specific functions involved include response to stimulus (8 vs. 6 proteins), immune system process (6 vs. 4), regulation of biologic processes (3 vs. 3), and ion transport (2 vs. 2). CONCLUSIONS: iTRAQ is one of the newest tools for quantitative mass spectrometry in tear proteome research. Differences in the protein ratios can be detected between normal and DE patients. PIR is a useful resource to interpret pathways and functions of proteins.
PURPOSE: We analyzed the change in protein expression of tear film proteins in dry eye (DE) and non-DE (NDE) patients using isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) technology. METHODS: We categorized 24 participants into NDE, and mild (MDE), moderate-to-severe (MSDE), and mixed (MXDE) DE on the basis of clinical DE tests. Tear samples (n = 6 subjects/group) were collected using Schirmer's strips. Proteins were extracted from strips and were quantified using the Bradford assay. Protein from each sample was pooled as internal standard (IS), and 20 μg protein from each sample and the IS were digested and labeled with different tandem mass tag (TMT) isobaric mass tag labeling reagent. The reaction was quenched and the labeled peptides were mixed. Samples were injected for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) analysis on the Orbitrap mass spectrometer. Bioinformatic analyses were performed using protein information resource (PIR). RESULTS: Combined results showed a total of 386 proteins in tears as determined by the iTRAQ experiments. An average of 163 proteins was detected in each of 6 biologic replicates. Of those, 55% were detected 6 times and 90% were detected multiple times (>2). In addition to the down-regulation of commonly reported proteins, such as lipocalin-1, lysozyme, and prolactin-inducible protein across all sub groups of DE, a number of proteins were significantly differentially regulated in MSDE and other subgroups of DE. A greater number of proteins were down-regulated in MSDE versus MDE, and the specific functions involved include response to stimulus (8 vs. 6 proteins), immune system process (6 vs. 4), regulation of biologic processes (3 vs. 3), and ion transport (2 vs. 2). CONCLUSIONS: iTRAQ is one of the newest tools for quantitative mass spectrometry in tear proteome research. Differences in the protein ratios can be detected between normal and DE patients. PIR is a useful resource to interpret pathways and functions of proteins.
Authors: Franz H Grus; Vladimir N Podust; Kai Bruns; Karl Lackner; Siyu Fu; Enrique A Dalmasso; Anton Wirthlin; Norbert Pfeiffer Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Philip L Ross; Yulin N Huang; Jason N Marchese; Brian Williamson; Kenneth Parker; Stephen Hattan; Nikita Khainovski; Sasi Pillai; Subhakar Dey; Scott Daniels; Subhasish Purkayastha; Peter Juhasz; Stephen Martin; Michael Bartlet-Jones; Feng He; Allan Jacobson; Darryl J Pappin Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2004-09-22 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Diane E Laurie; Rebecca K Splan; Kari Green; Katherine M Still; Robert L McKown; Gordon W Laurie Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mark D P Willcox; Pablo Argüeso; Georgi A Georgiev; Juha M Holopainen; Gordon W Laurie; Tom J Millar; Eric B Papas; Jannick P Rolland; Tannin A Schmidt; Ulrike Stahl; Tatiana Suarez; Lakshman N Subbaraman; Omür Ö Uçakhan; Lyndon Jones Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Jian-Ying Zhou; Lijun Chen; Bai Zhang; Yuan Tian; Tao Liu; Stefani N Thomas; Li Chen; Michael Schnaubelt; Emily Boja; Tara Hiltke; Christopher R Kinsinger; Henry Rodriguez; Sherri R Davies; Shunqiang Li; Jacqueline E Snider; Petra Erdmann-Gilmore; David L Tabb; R Reid Townsend; Matthew J Ellis; Karin D Rodland; Richard D Smith; Steven A Carr; Zhen Zhang; Daniel W Chan; Hui Zhang Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Richard D Semba; Jan J Enghild; Vidya Venkatraman; Thomas F Dyrlund; Jennifer E Van Eyk Journal: Proteomics Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Francisco Velez V; Jeffrey A Romano; Robert L McKown; Kari Green; Liwen Zhang; Ronald W Raab; Denise S Ryan; Cindy M L Hutnik; Henry F Frierson; Gordon W Laurie Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Yinghui Zhang; Ningning Wang; Ronald W Raab; Robert L McKown; Jacob A Irwin; Inchan Kwon; Toin H van Kuppevelt; Gordon W Laurie Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 5.157