| Literature DB >> 29485613 |
Maddalena Cagnone1, Anna Bardoni2, Paolo Iadarola3, Simona Viglio4.
Abstract
Very often the clinical features of rare neurodegenerative disorders overlap with those of other, more common clinical disturbances. As a consequence, not only the true incidence of these disorders is underestimated, but many patients also experience a significant delay before a definitive diagnosis. Under this scenario, it appears clear that any accurate tool producing information about the pathological mechanisms of these disorders would offer a novel context for their precise identification by strongly enhancing the interpretation of symptoms. With the advent of proteomics, detection and identification of proteins in different organs/tissues, aimed at understanding whether they represent an attractive tool for monitoring alterations in these districts, has become an area of increasing interest. The aim of this report is to provide an overview of the most recent applications of proteomics as a new strategy for identifying biomarkers with a clinical utility for the investigation of rare neurodegenerative disorders.Entities:
Keywords: 2-DE; LC-MS/MS; biomarkers; proteomics; rare neurodegenerative disorders
Year: 2018 PMID: 29485613 PMCID: PMC5876528 DOI: 10.3390/ht7010002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: High Throughput ISSN: 2571-5135
Figure 1Cartoon showing the inability of physicians to a fast diagnosis of rare neurodegenerative diseases whose symptoms are similar to those of other more common neurological disorders.
List of diseases considered in this report together with the methodological approaches applied for their study, the type of samples considered, the number of proteins identified and the original article of reference.
| Type of Neurodegenerative Disease | Type of Samples Analyzed | Number of Proteins Identified | Proteomic Approach | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prion disease | Cortex and cerebellum | 2287 | iTRAQ, LC-MS/MS | [ |
| CSF | 1670 | iTRAQ, LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Cerebellum | 83 | 2-DE, MS | [ | |
| Nasu-Hakola disease | Lymphoblastoid cells | 21 | 2-DE, nLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Guillain-Barré syndrome | CSF | 12 | 2D-DIGE, MALDI-TOF MS | [ |
| CSF | 47 | 2D-DIGE, MALDI-TOF MS | [ | |
| CSF | 6 | 2-DE, MALDI-TOF MS | [ | |
| CSF | 3 | 2-DE | [ | |
| CSF | 10 | 2-DE, MALDI-TOF MS | [ | |
| Schwannoma cell line YST-1 | 6 | 2-DE | [ | |
| HPN tissue | 3 | 1-DE, nHPLC-nESI-HRMS | [ | |
| Serum | 330 | iTRAQ, LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| CSF | 854 | 1-DE, LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| CSF | 17 | 2-DE, MALDI-TOF/TOF | [ | |
| Niemann-Pick disease | CSF | 109 | 2-DE, MALDI-TOF/TOF, LC-ESI-MS/MS | [ |
| NPC1I1061T fibroblasts | 4308 | TMT labelling, MudPIT | [ | |
| NPC fibroblasts | 114 | 1-DE, LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| NPC1 deficient cells | 7342 | 1-DE, LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Human fibroblasts | 19 | 1-DE, LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| NPC1 I1061T fibroblasts | 2916 | TMT, MudPIT | [ | |
| Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses | Human brains | 320 | 1-DE, LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Human fibroblasts | 24 | PF2D, MALDI-TOF-MS, LC-ESI-MS/MS | [ | |
| Human fibroblasts | 8 | 2-DE, MALDI-TOF/TOF | [ | |
| Human neuroblastoma cells | 58 | TAP-MS | [ | |
| Human neuroblastoma cells | 23 | TAP-MS | [ | |
| Plasma | 27 | 2D-DIGE, LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Human brains | 17 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
1-DE. one-dimensional gel electrophoresis; 2D-DIGE: two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis; 2-DE: two-dimensional gel electrophoresis; HPLC: high-performance liquid chromatography; TRAQ: isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation; LC-ESI-MS/MS: liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry; LC-MS/MS: liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; LC-MS: liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry; MALDI-TOF: matrix assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight; MS: mass spectrometry; MudPIT: multidimensional protein identification technology; PF2D: two-dimensional protein fragmentation; TAP-MS: tandem affinity purification mass spectrometry; TMT: tandem mass tag.
Pros and cons of the techniques encountered in this report.
| Technique | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
Allows separation of all types of proteins, even those insoluble in water. | Overlapping of closely-spaced bands with consequent limited resolution. Not able to identify isoforms and Low Molecular Weight proteins. For protein identification needs the coupling of another technique, i.e., immunoblotting or MS. | |
Good resolution of protein mixtures.-Allows discernment of post-translational modifications. Comparison of multiple gels facilitated by image analysis software. More statistically robust than other methods Use of broad/narrow pH gradients Identification of protein isoforms Cost-effectiveness of the procedure | Unable to resolve low (<10 kDa) and high (MW > 250 KDa) molecular weight proteins Unable to resolve highly acidic (pI < 3) or basic proteins (pI > 9) The presence of high abundant proteins (i.e., immunoglobulins and/or albumin) masks the low abundant ones. Final identification requires spot removal from gels, digestion and peptide analysis by MS. Low throughput. | |
Very sensitive. Ratio of protein expression can be obtained in a single gel. An internal standard can be introduced in each gel to reduce gel-to-gel variation. | Also this technique shows all drawbacks previously underlined for 2 DE (see above). | |
Fast and robust tool Identification of membrane proteins Identification of low abundant proteins Powerful tool for studying large-scale protein expression and characterization of complex biological systems Detection of proteins with extreme/peculiar molecular mass and pI High sensitivity (sub-pM range) High throughput | Expensive, in terms of capital and running costs |