| Literature DB >> 35048506 |
Jinying Liu1,2, Hongjian Lian2,3, Jiang Yu2, Jie Wu1, Xiangyang Chen4, Peng Wang1, Lei Tian2, Yunfei Yang5, Jiaqi Yang1, Dong Li6,7, Shuzhen Guo2.
Abstract
Heart failure is a process characterized by significant disturbance of protein turnover. To elucidate the alterations in cardiac protein expression during the various phases of heart failure and to understand the nature of the processes involved, we analysed the proteome in an established heart failure model at different time points to monitor thousands of different proteins simultaneously. Here, heart failure was induced by transverse aortic constriction (TAC) in KM mice. At 2, 4 and 12 weeks after operation, protein expression profiles were determined in sham-operated (controls) and TAC mice, using label-free quantitative proteomics, leading to identification and quantification of almost 4000 proteins. The results of the KEGG pathway enrichment analysis and GO function annotation revealed critical pathways associated with the transition from cardiac hypertrophy to heart failure, such as energy pathways and matrix reorganization. Our study suggests that in the pathophysiology of heart failure, alterations of protein groups related to cardiac energy substrate metabolism and cytoskeleton remodelling could play the more dominant roles for the signalling that eventually results in contractile dysfunction and heart failure.Entities:
Keywords: cytoskeleton; heart failure; metabolism; proteomics
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35048506 PMCID: PMC8831959 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.17170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
FIGURE 1Haematoxylin and eosin staining (HE) of the mouse heart from various groups at the two indicated magnifications
Echocardiographic parameters of hearts subjected to pressure overload
| Group |
| LVAWd (mm) | LVAWs (mm) | LVIDd (mm) | LVIDs (mm) | LVPWd (mm) | LVPWs (mm) | EF (%) | FS (%) | LVEDV (µL) | LVESV (µL) | LVM (mg) | LVMI (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | 4 | 1.52 ± 0.11 | 2.13 ± 0.12 | 4.686 ± 0.13 | 3.09 ± 0.18 | 1.01 ± 0.09 | 1.39 ± 0.08 | 63.00 ± 3.15 | 34.22 ± 2.25 | 101.99 ± 6.25 | 38.29 ± 5.33 | 287.75 ± 23.82 | 4.50 ± 0.29 |
| TAC_2W | 4 | 1.25 ± 0.06 | 1.90 ± 0.07 | 3.75 ± 0.12 | 2.14 ± 0.21 | 1.49 ± 0.13 | 1.95 ± 0.20 | 74.52 ± 4.61 | 43.28 ± 4.06 | 60.26 ± 4.68 | 15.87 ± 3.77 | 233.59 ± 20.20 | 6.03 ± 0.40 |
| TAC_4W | 4 | 1.31 ± 0.03 | 1.73 ± 0.05 | 4.20 ± 0.39 | 3.05 ± 0.53 | 1.27 ± 0.10 | 1.71 ± 0.06 | 54.61 ± 9.78 | 29.31 ± 6.90 | 81.54 ± 16.61 | 41.67 ± 14.24 | 258.59 ± 44.96 | 4.83 ± 0.62 |
| TAC_12W | 4 | 1.31 ± 0.03 | 1.80 ± 0.02 | 5.41 ± 0.61 | 4.45 ± 0.72 | 1.21 ± 0.05 | 1.40 ± 0.09 | 36.37 ± 3.21 | 17.72 ± 1.77 | 143.03 ± 12.91 | 90.31 ± 6.41 | 361.59 ± 24.57 | 5.88 ± 0.34 |
Data are mean ± SD or Percentage (%). Sham, the group of sham‐operated mice; TAC_2w, the group of 2 weeks after TAC operation; TAC_4w, the group of 4 weeks after TAC operation; TAC_12w, the group of 12 weeks after TAC operation.
Abbreviations: EF, left ventricular ejection fraction; FS, left ventricular midwall fractional shortening; LVAWd, left ventricular end‐diastolic anterior wall thickness; LVAWs, left ventricular end‐systole anterior wall thickness; LVEDV, left ventricular end‐diastolic volume; LVESV, left ventricular end‐systolic volume; LVIDd, left ventricular internal diastolic diameter; LVIDs, left ventricular internal systolic diameter; LVM, calculated left ventricle mass; LVMI, left ventricle mass index; LVPWd, left ventricular posterior wall thickness in diastole; LVPWs, left ventricular posterior wall thickness in systole.
p < 0.05, compared with the sham operation group.
p < 0.05, compared with the group of 2 weeks after TAC operation.
p < 0.05, compared with the group of 4 weeks after TAC operation.
FIGURE 2Proteomics of the TAC groups compared to the sham operation group. (A), Principal component analysis (PCA) of the sham operation group and the TAC groups (2‐week, 4‐week and 12‐week) showing a clear difference in proteomic profiles. (B), Heat map of differentially expressed proteins showing significant differences in abundance between the sham operation group and the TAC group at 2, 4 and 12 weeks. Each row in the heat map corresponds to data from a single protein, whereas columns correspond to individual samples. The branching dendrogram corresponds to the relationships among samples, as determined by clustering using identified differentially expressed proteins. Increases and decreases in protein abundance are shown on a continuum from red to blue respectively. (C), Volcano plot visualizing the changes of differentially expressed proteins between the sham operation group and the TAC groups at 2, 4 and 12 weeks. Proteins whose expression was significantly increased in the TAC groups are in the upper right section, and proteins whose expression was significantly decreased are in the upper left section. The x‐axis represents log2 fold change in the TAC groups (2‐, 4‐ and 12‐week) compared with the sham operation group. (D), Number of proteins with at least 1.5‐fold change (with p < 0.05) in abundance the TAC groups vs. the sham group were shown (red: upregulated proteins; green: downregulated proteins)
FIGURE 3Gene ontology and KEGG annotation for the up‐ and downregulated proteins separately. (A) Down‐ and (B) Upregulated biological processes in TAC_2w group vs. sham group. (C) Down‐ and (D) Upregulated biological processes in TAC_4w group vs. sham group. (E) Down‐ and (F) Upregulated biological processes in TAC_12w group vs. sham group. (G, H, and I) KEGG pathway enriched by differentially expressed proteins separately (Only representative items were listed); red represented upregulated proteins, and green represented downregulated proteins; The rectangle represents−log10 (p‐value). (G) Up‐ and downregulated pathways in TAC_2w group vs. sham group. (H) Up‐ and downregulated pathways in TAC_4w group vs. sham group. (I) Up‐ and downregulated pathways in TAC_12w group vs. sham group. (J), ‘Protein class’ classification from the PANTHER database (http://pantherdb.org/). The bar chart represented the classification of the differentially expressed proteins according to the GO categories. The y‐axis showed the number of proteins against a total number of differentially expressed proteins
FIGURE 4Bioinformatics analysis for the differentially expressed proteins in three TAC groups. (A), Identification of overlapping differentially expressed proteins in three TAC groups through Venn diagrams (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/Venn/). Each coloured ellipse in the Venn diagram represents a Group Set, and the number stands for the number of differentially expressed proteins in each cross area. The bar chart represented the number of up‐ and downregulated proteins in each cross area according to the Venn diagram (red: upregulated proteins; green: downregulated proteins). A total of 101 overlapping proteins were obtained from three time points after TAC, with 79 downregulated proteins and 20 upregulated proteins. (B) Upregulated and (C) downregulated GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of overlapping proteins (6 representative items were listed). Four different colours separately represent four different categories: molecular function, cellular component, biological process and KEGG pathway. (D), Protein‐protein interaction network of the 101 overlapping proteins with a score >0.7. Disconnected nodes were hiding in the network. Each node stands for a gene or a protein, and edges represent the interactions between the nodes. Red nodes represent upregulated proteins; green nodes stand for downregulated proteins; and blue nodes stand for the linker proteins. (E), Two significant modules in PPI network and GO and KEGG analysis of significant modules: (1) Module 1 and (2) module 2
FIGURE 5Expression of selected genes by RT‐PCR. *p < 0.05, compared with the sham operation group. **p < 0.01, compared with the sham operation group