| Literature DB >> 25162036 |
Stefan Kalkhof1, Yvonne Förster2, Johannes Schmidt1, Matthias C Schulz3, Sven Baumann4, Anne Weißflog3, Wenling Gao2, Ute Hempel5, Uwe Eckelt3, Stefan Rammelt2, Martin von Bergen6.
Abstract
Wound healing of soft tissue and bone defects is a complex process in which cellular differentiation and adaption are regulated by internal and external factors, among them are many different proteins. In contrast to insights into the significance of various single proteins based on model systems, the knowledge about the processes at the actual site of wound healing is still limited. This is caused by a general lack of methods that allow sampling of extracellular factors, metabolites, and proteins in situ. Sampling of wound fluids in combination with proteomics and metabolomics is one of the promising approaches to gain comprehensive and time resolved data on effector molecules. Here, we describe an approach to sample metabolites by microdialysis and to extract proteins simultaneously by adsorption. With this approach it is possible (i) to collect, enrich, and purify proteins for a comprehensive proteome analysis; (ii) to detect more than 600 proteins in different defects including more than 100 secreted proteins, of which many proteins have previously been demonstrated to have diagnostic or predictive power for the wound healing state; and (iii) to combine continuous sampling of cytokines and metabolites and discontinuous sampling of larger proteins to gain complementary information of the same defect.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25162036 PMCID: PMC4137721 DOI: 10.1155/2014/934848
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Scheme of the microdialysis setup (modified to CMA Microdialysis AB, Solna, Sweden).
Figure 2Analysis of the reproducibility of protein identifications between biological replicates and between the different defects. Venn diagram showing the overlap between proteins covered in replicates of the femoral bone defect (a) and soft tissue defect (b), N = 3, and (c) between proteins being identified in wound fluids of the three different defects.
Figure 3Analysis of the MW and pI distribution of the proteins being identified in WF of soft tissue and femoral bone defects. (a) Simulated 2D gel and distribution of the identified proteins compared to all proteins currently known to be secreted (according Gonzales et al. [24]) in respect to (b) the MW and (c) the pI.
Figure 4Protein-protein interaction network of secreted proteins being identified in soft tissue and femoral bone defects. The 60 proteins which were (i) identified in our study, (ii) annotated to be extracellularly located, and (iii) assigned to at least one molecular function were clustered according the annotated biological process. Connected proteins are experimentally determined protein-protein interaction partners.
Potential biomarkers being detected in WF samples of the soft tissue or femoral bone defect.
| Description | UniProt accession | Gene ID | Description | MW [kDa] | Calc. pI | Max. Mascot score | Number of unique peptides | % sequence coverage | References | Further related proteins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complement Factors | Q6P6G4 | C1qb | Complement C1q subcomponent subunit B | 26.6 | 8.8 | 42.1 | 2 | 11 | Cazander et al., 2012 [ | C1qb, C2, C3, C4, C4b, C8g, and C9 |
| G3V615 | C3 | Complement C3 | 186.2 | 6.5 | 2128.3 | 87 | 57 | Cazander et al., 2012 [ | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Serin proteases and inhibitors | Q5RKH1 | Prtn3 | Protein Prtn3 | 27.7 | 8.0 | 48.9 | 2 | 16 | Eming et al., 2007 [ | A1m, A2m, SERPINA4, SERPINC1, SERPINF2, Ambp, C3, C4, C4b, C8g, Itih1, Itih3, and Itih4 |
|
| ||||||||||
| Cytokine receptor antagonists | P20761 | Il1rn | Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist protein | 20.3 | 6.9 | 51.5 | 3 | 17 | Ishida et al., 2006 [ | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Matrix metallopeptidases | P08011 | Mmp8 | Matrix metallopeptidase 8 | 53.2 | 6.6 | 42.7 | 5 | 16 |
Gutiérrez-Fernández et al., 2007 [ | Anpep, Cpb2, Hpx, and Lta4h |
| G3V7D0 | Mmp9 | Matrix metallopeptidase 9 | 78.5 | 6.3 | 65.6 | 4 | 8 | Reiss et al., 2010 [ | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| Oxidoreductases | D3ZYK8 | Mpo | Myeloperoxidase (mapped) | 51.9 | 9.9 | 798.4 | 9 | 66 | Moor et al., 2009 [ | Gpx1, Gpx3, Gsr, HMOX1, Impdh2, Lbr, Ldha, Ldhb, Ldhc, Mdh1, Mdh2, Mpo, Mtco2, Ndufv2, Nos2, Pgd, Prdx1, Prdx2, Prdx6, Sod1, Sod2, Sod3, Tkt, and Txn |
|
| ||||||||||
| S100 proteins and annexins | Q6B345 | S100a8 | Protein S100-A8 | 10.2 | 6.1 | 426.6 | 7 | 87 | Thorey et al., 2001 [ | S100a11, Anxa2, Anxa3, Anxa4, Anxa5, Anxa6, Anxa7, and Anxa11 |
| P50115 | S100a9 | Protein S100-A9 | 13.1 | 7.5 | 375.5 | 15 | 84 | Wyffels et al., 2010 [ | ||
| G3V7W7 | Anxa1 | Annexin A1 | 38.8 | 7.3 | 1750.0 | 33 | 75 | Leoni et al., 2013 [ | ||
Proteins which were reported as biomarker candidates and could be identified in at least 2 samples of the soft tissue or femoral bone defect are grouped according to their annotated protein classes. Additionally, further proteins being identified and belonging to the same protein classes are listed.