| Literature DB >> 34234838 |
Feng Li1, Bai Yang1, Yanan Liu2,3,4, Tianying Tang1, Cun Wang1, Mei Li1, Siyi Lv1, Qin Qi1, Huirong Liu2,3,4, Zheng Shi2,3,4, Huangan Wu2,3,4, Xiaomei Wang2,3,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in sera of patients with chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) using isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) and to explore acupuncture's mechanism in CAG.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34234838 PMCID: PMC8219412 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9962224
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Baseline characteristic.
| Clinical parameters | Healthy controls | NAG group | CAG group |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60.50 ± 4.90 | 60.13 ± 3.91 | 62.63 ± 3.66 | 0.451a |
| Sex (male/female) | 3/5 | 4/4 | 3/5 | 0.842c |
| Body mass index | 23.35 ± 0.85 | 23.82 ± 0.88 | 22.79 ± 0.81 | 0.697a |
| Smoker (+/−) | 2/6 | 1/7 | 2/6 | 0.777c |
| Disease duration (years) | — | 5.63 ± 0.88 | 10.50 ± 1.54 | 0.014b |
|
| ||||
|
| — | 3/5 | 2/6 | 0.590c |
|
| — | 1/7 | 2/6 | 0.522c |
|
| — | 3/5 | 2/6 | 0.590c |
Data are presented as number (mean ± standard deviation). There was no significant difference in sex, age, BMI, and smoking between the three groups. There was no significant difference in medications between NAG and CAG groups. There was a significant difference in disease duration between NAG and CAG groups (p < 0.05), ap value by variance analysis test. bp value by independent samples t-test. cp by χ2 test.
Clinical features of CAG patients before and after acupuncture treatment.
| Outcome measures | Before acupuncture treatment | After acupuncture treatment |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| 62.13 ± 6.77 | 28.38 ± 2.30 | 0.000a |
|
| 108.69 ± 1.78 | 116.53 ± 2.07 | 0.000a |
|
| 36.44 ± 1.47 | 30.44 ± 0.50 | 0.001a |
|
| 35.50 ± 1.07 | 31.56 ± 0.58 | 0.008a |
|
| |||
|
| 0/2/6/0 | 2/4/2/0 | 0.037b |
|
| 0/4/4/0 | 4/3/1/0 | 0.025b |
Atrophy of gastric mucosa: (−): There was no decrease in the number of inherent glands; (+): The number of inherent glands decreased by no more than 1/3 of the original glands; (++): The number of inherent glands decreased between 1/3 and 2/3 of the original glands; (+++): The number of inherent glands decreased by more than 2/3, with only a few remaining glands or even complete disappearance. Gastric intestinal metaplasia: (−): There was no intestinal metaplasia in gastric mucosa; (+): The area of intestinal metaplasia occupies less than 1/3 of the total area; (++): The area of intestinal metaplasia occupies less than 2/3 of the total area; (+++): The area of intestinal metaplasia occupies more than 2/3 of the total area. TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine, SF-36: the MOS item short from health survey, SAS: Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, SDS: Self-Rating Depression Scale. ap value by paired samples t-test, and bp value by Kruskal–Wallis test.
Differentially expressed proteins in 4 groups.
| Group | Upregulation | Downregulation |
|---|---|---|
| B vs. A | 27 | 48 |
| C vs. A | 75 | 31 |
| C vs. B | 82 | 28 |
| C vs. D | 30 | 33 |
The threshold was protein difference fold, which reached 1.4-fold (ratio ≥ 1.4 or ≤ 0.714). A: healthy controls; B: NAG group; C: CAG group; D: CAG + ACU group.
Figure 1Differences and similarities of the four identified proteins were analyzed according to the protein uniprot number. A: healthy controls; B: NAG group; C: CAG group; D: CAG + ACU group.
Figure 2Classification of the identified proteins by GO database. A: healthy controls; B: NAG group; C: CAG group; D: CAG + ACU group. MF: molecular function; CC: cellular component; BP: biological process. (a) B vs. A in MF; (b) B vs. A in CC; (c) B vs. A in BP; (d) C vs. A in MF; (e) C vs. A in CC; (f) C vs. A in BP; (g) C vs. B in MF; (h) C vs. B in CC; (i) C vs. B in BP; (j) C vs. D in MF; (k) C vs. D in CC; (l) C vs. D in BP.
Figure 3Classification of the identified proteins by KEGG database. (a) The eleven most significant KEGG pathways in NAG group vs. healthy controls. (b) The fifteen most significant KEGG pathways in CAG group vs. healthy controls. (c) The fifteen most significant KEGG pathways in CAG group vs. NAG group. (d) The fifteen most significant KEGG pathways in CAG group vs. CAG + ACU group.
Figure 4Association networks of dysregulated proteins. (a) The protein-protein interaction networks in NAG group vs. healthy controls. (b) The protein-protein interaction networks in CAG group vs. healthy controls. (c) The protein-protein interaction networks in CAG group vs. NAG group. (d) The protein-protein interaction networks in CAG group vs. CAG + ACU group.
Figure 5Clustered heatmap analysis of the differential proteins in NAG, CAG, and CAG + ACU groups. Each column represents the protein information of one group of samples, and each row represents the relative expression level of each protein. Red represents significantly upregulated proteins, green represents significantly downregulated proteins, and black represents no significant difference in proteins.
Figure 6The expression patterns of 106 proteins analyzed by model profile, and fifty model profiles were used to summarize. Each box represents a model expression profile. The upper number in the profile box is the model profile number, and the lower one is the p value. (a) Upregulated protein tendency; (b) downregulated protein tendency.
Figure 7(a) Downregulated protein expression of profile No. 46 and (b) upregulated protein expression of profile No. 39. A: healthy controls; B: NAG group; C: CAG group; D: CAG + ACU group.
Selected six serum differential proteins quantitative results in iTRAQ and ELISA analyses.
| Gene name | Swissprot number | iTRAQ | ELISA |
|---|---|---|---|
| TPM4 | P67936 | 1 : 0.98 : 3.37 : 2.10 | 1 : 1.56 : 3.46 : 1.81 |
| TMSB4X | P62328 | 1 : 1.18 : 4.94 : 2.64 | 1 : 1.45 : 2.75 : 1.76 |
| TAGLN2 | P37802 | 1 : 0.96 : 3.16 : 1.95 | 1 : 1.17 : 2.31 : 1.50 |
| PFN1 | P07737 | 1 : 1.03 : 2.24 : 1.36 | 1 : 1.57 : 3.79 : 2.12 |
| NOTCH2 | Q04721 | 1 : 0.94 : 0.68 : 1.03 | 1 : 0.50 : 0.42 : 0.58 |
| NOTCH3 | M0R3C9 | 1 : 0.81 : 0.51 : 0.96 | 1 : 0.56 : 0.44 : 0.72 |
TPM4: tropomyosin4, TMSB4X: thymosin beta-4, TAGLN2: transgelin-2, PFN1: profilin-1, NOTCH2: Notch2, NOTCH3: Notch3.
Figure 8TPM4, PFN1, TAGLN2, thymosin β 4, Notch2, and Notch3 levels in 4 groups. Compared to the HC group, ap < 0.05 and bp < 0.01. Compared to the CAG group, cp < 0.05 and dp < 0.01.