| Literature DB >> 32585904 |
Ana Gil-Bona1,2, Felicitas B Bidlack1,2.
Abstract
Tooth enamel is the outer covering of tooth crowns, the hardest material in the mammalian body, yet fracture resistant. The extremely high content of 95 wt% calcium phosphate in healthy adult teeth is achieved through mineralization of a proteinaceous matrix that changes in abundance and composition. Enamel-specific proteins and proteases are known to be critical for proper enamel formation. Recent proteomics analyses revealed many other proteins with their roles in enamel formation yet to be unraveled. Although the exact protein composition of healthy tooth enamel is still unknown, it is apparent that compromised enamel deviates in amount and composition of its organic material. Why these differences affect both the mineralization process before tooth eruption and the properties of erupted teeth will become apparent as proteomics protocols are adjusted to the variability between species, tooth size, sample size and ephemeral organic content of forming teeth. This review summarizes the current knowledge and published proteomics data of healthy and diseased tooth enamel, including advancements in forensic applications and disease models in animals. A summary and discussion of the status quo highlights how recent proteomics findings advance our understating of the complexity and temporal changes of extracellular matrix composition during tooth enamel formation.Entities:
Keywords: amelogenin; amelogenin-Y (AMELY); dental anthropology; dental fluorosis; enamel peptide; enamel proteome; molar hypomineralization; serum albumin; tooth enamel
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32585904 PMCID: PMC7352428 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21124458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1Illustration of the process of enamel formation. (A) Micro computed tomography radiograph of mouse mandible (without mandibular ramus) showing lighter grey values for higher mineral density, tooth enamel in white on molar crowns and in a gradient according to increasing mineralization in the continuously forming incisor. Data acquired on a Scanco Medical μ40 instrument (Scanco, Brüttisellen, CH). (B) Schematic representation of mouse mandible showing continuous incisor growth from early stages of enamel formation with high amount of protein (blue) to mature, erupted enamel containing less than 1% by weight protein and more than 95 % by weight mineral (yellow). (C) Schematic of ameloblast morphology indicating differentiation and different stages during enamel formation (adapted from Hu et al. [11]). Color filled arrow indicates progression of time and compositional changes of the mineralizing matrix from high protein content (blue) with little mineral, to low protein and high mineral content (yellow) in later stages of mineralization and mature enamel. (D) Graph depicting decreasing protein and increasing mineral content in developing enamel, with activity period of matrix metalloproteinase 20 (Mmp20), phosphatase and kallikrein-4 (Klk4) during mineralization of rodent incisors (adapted from Robinson et al. [12]). (E–G) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the forming mouse incisor in longitudinal plane. Enamel with high protein content seen at high magnification in late secretory stage (E, scale bar 200 nm) and with some matrix protein, colored in blue, around crystal bundles in early maturation stage (F, scale bar 200 nm). At lower magnification, the decussation pattern of crystal bundles in mature, erupted enamel in (G, scale bar 10 microns). SEM—samples were fixed, dehydrated, epoxy resin embedded, polished, phosphoric acid etched, gold coated and imaged on a Zeiss SEM Ultra55.
Peptide sequences identified from amelogenin. Only peptides identified in a minimum of 2 samples are illustrated in this table. Peptides from isoform Y are annotated. Porto et al. [21]; Lugli et al. [43]; Stewart et al. [44]; Castiblanco et al. [45]; Stewart et al. [46].
| Peptide(s) | Contemporary Molar (Trypsin) | Contemporary Molar (No Trypsin) | Mummy (Trypsin) | Mummy (No Trypsin) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRPPYPSYGYEPMG | [ | |||
| LPPHPGHPGYIN | [ | [ | ||
| LPPHPGHPGYINF | [ | [ | ||
| LPPHPGHPGYINFSYEVLTPLK | [ | [ | ||
| M(ox)PLPPHPGH (AMELX/AMELY) | [ | [ | ||
| M(ox)PLPPHPGHPGYINF | [ | [ | [ | |
| MPLPPHPGHPG | [ | [ | ||
| MPLPPHPGHPGYIN | [ | [ | ||
| MPLPPHPGHPGYINF | [ | [ | ||
| MPLPPHPGHPGYINFSYEVLTPLK | [ | [ | ||
| PHPGHPGYINF | [ | [ | [ | |
| SIRPPYPSY | [ | [ | [ | |
| SIRPPYPSYGYEP | [ | |||
| SIRPPYPSYGYEPM | [ | |||
| SIRPPYPSYGYEPMG | [ | [ | ||
| SM(ox)IRPPY (AMELY) | [ | [ | ||
| SYEVLTPLK (AMELX/AMELY) | [ | [ | [ | |
| SYEVLTPLKWYQSIRPPYP | [ | [ | [ | |
| WYQSIRPPYP | [ | [ | ||
| YEVLTPLK | [ | [ | [ | |
| YEVLTPLKWY (AMELX/AMELY) | [ | [ |
Proteins identified from contemporary and archeological enamel samples.
| Condition | Proteins (Peptides Identified) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amelogenin, X Isoform | Amelogenin, Y Isoform | Ameloblastin | Enamelin | Serum Albumin | Hemoglobin Subunit Alpha | Hemoglobin Subunit Beta | Collagen Alpha-1(I) Chain | Collagen Alpha-1(III) Chain | Collagen Alpha-2(I) Chain | Antithrombin-III | Alpha-1-Antitrypsin | |
| Contemporary (trypsin) | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ |
| Contemporary (no trypsin) | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |||
| Mummy (no trypsin) | [ | [ | [ | [ | [ | |||||||
| Mummy (trypsin) | [ | |||||||||||
The use of trypsin digestion after protein extraction and before mass spectrometry is specified in the table. Porto et al. [21]; Lugli et al. [43]; Castiblanco et al. [45]; Stewart et al. [46]; Jagr et al. [47]; Farah et al. [48].
Figure 2Strategies for proteomic analyses of tooth enamel. Schematic of treatment steps used to characterize proteins in human tooth enamel from archeological, modern and teeth affected by molar hypomineralization (chalky tooth enamel). Porto et al. [21]; Lugli et al. [43]; Stewart et al. [44]; Castiblanco et al. [45]; Stewart et al. [46]; Jagr et al. [47]; Farah et al. [48]; Nielsen-Marsh et al. [49]; Mangum et al. [50]. Each bracket denotes alternative options and reflects the variability in published protocols.
Figure 3Comparison of protein content between healthy and diseased tooth enamel. Shown proteins are seen in (rows) identified in any of the tooth conditions (columns) are illustrated. Healthy teeth shown as reference in light grey, Chalky/ Molar Hypomolarization (MH): enamel affected by molar hypomineralization [48,50,92], Fluorosis [93,94,95] and Amelogenesis Imperfecta (AI): hypocalcified and hypomaturation amelogenesis imperfecta enamel [88,89,90]; Range of percent by weight (wt%) of protein abundance relative to healthy enamel show in colors: light gray for healthy range of 0.1–1 wt%; 2–3 fold increase (light teal); 3–30 fold increase (dark teal); 0–30 fold increase (grey-teal gradient).
Figure 4Overview of proteins detected in enamel from permanent molars of 6-months-old [112] and 8-months-old pigs [15]. The chart distribution is based on the protein detection in soft enamel and hard enamel, described as secretory and mature stages, respectively.
Summary of pros and cons of the species for research on tooth enamel. Per model, the most prominent pros and cons on the models covered in this review are listed.
| Model | References | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human: | [ |
Primary source for research on human enamel formation Clinical relevance of factors affecting enamel development Contemporary and archaeological record of ontogeny, health history, behavior and environment Forensic sciences: sex determination in human remains |
Availability limited (shed teeth, teeth extracted for clinical reasons or postmortem) Limited access to forming teeth Small amount of protein in erupted teeth No deliberate genetic models to study genotype effects on enamel Difficulty to relate genetic and epigenetic variability to subtle enamel variability No mechanistic studies, no controlled experiments |
| Pig/miniature pig | [ |
Availability Large size provides big sample amount Similar to human teeth in size: good model system Access to forming teeth, matrix composition in different stages of enamel development Can study post-transcriptional modifications of matrix proteins (phosphorylation, glycosylation) Mechanistic studies and controlled experiments possible |
Gene sequence and processing vary from human, e.g., amelogenin with 173 amino acids vs 189 in humans) Poorly annotated genome and proteome Controlled studies: costs for animal housing Genetic modification possible but limited |
| Mouse/rat | [ |
Availability Low cost Dental development well characterized Continuously growing incisors allow access to all stages for enamel formation Can study enamel matrix in different stages of development Genetically tractable: can explain variability in phenotype and properties Genetic modification: mechanistic studies possible Mechanistic studies and controlled experiments most feasible compared to other mammals Disease models can be created or are available. |
Differences in number and morphology of teeth Monophyodont dentition (one set of teeth, not primary and permanent teeth as in humans and pigs) Small tooth size: low amount of sample material to analyze and difficulty of physically isolating enamel matrix. Sample pooling from many animals analyze enamel only at specific stages of formation Gene sequence and processing vary from human, e.g., amelogenin with 180 amino acids vs. 189 in humans) Amelogenin encoded only by one gene (AMELX). |
Figure 5Schematic of potential mechanism of post-translational modifications and secretion of enamel proteins during the course of enamel formation. (1) Post-translational modifications of enamel proteins occur with the ameloblast. These modifications are used as a signal to be secreted, cleavage during the secretory stage and degraded during the maturation stage. (2) Some of the enamel proteins generated with the ameloblast lack post-translational modification and they are secreted via non-classical pathways. These proteins would be less or not degraded during the mineralization process. (3) Alternative to pathway 1, de-phosphorylation to account for the presence of non-phosphorylated enamel proteins in mature enamel. (P) phosphorylation, (G) glycosylation; Blue: enamel that is more recently deposited, younger, with higher protein content. Yellow: enamel that is further developed and more mature, older enamel, more mineralized with lower protein content.