| Literature DB >> 36012291 |
Alessandra Anna Altomare1, Gilda Aiello1,2, Jessica Leite Garcia3, Giulia Garrone4, Beatrice Zoanni1, Marina Carini1, Giancarlo Aldini1, Alfonsina D'Amato1.
Abstract
Advanced quantitative bioanalytical approaches in combination with network analyses allow us to answer complex biological questions, such as the description of changes in protein profiles under disease conditions or upon treatment with drugs. In the present work, three quantitative proteomic approaches-either based on labelling or not-in combination with network analyses were applied to a new in vitro cellular model of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) for the first time. This disease is characterized by the accumulation of lipids, inflammation, fibrosis, and insulin resistance. Hepatic G2 cells were used as model, and NAFLD was induced by a complex of oleic acid and bovine albumin. The development of the disease was verified by lipid vesicle staining and by the increase in the expression of perilipin-2-a protein constitutively present in the vesicles during NAFLD. The nLC-MS/MS analyses of peptide samples obtained from three different proteomic approaches resulted in accurate and reproducible quantitative data of protein fold-change expressed in NAFLD versus control cells. The differentially regulated proteins were used to evaluate the involved and statistically enriched pathways. Network analyses highlighted several functional and disease modules affected by NAFLD, such as inflammation, oxidative stress defense, cell proliferation, and ferroptosis. Each quantitative approach allowed the identification of similar modulated pathways. The combination of the three approaches improved the power of statistical network analyses by increasing the number of involved proteins and their fold-change. In conclusion, the application of advanced bioanalytical approaches in combination with pathway analyses allows the in-depth and accurate description of the protein profile of an in vitro cellular model of NAFLD by using high-resolution quantitative mass spectrometry data. This model could be extremely useful in the discovery of new drugs to modulate the equilibrium NAFLD health state.Entities:
Keywords: NAFLD; nano liquid chromatography; proteins; signaling; tandem mass spectrometry
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36012291 PMCID: PMC9408868 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23169025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1(A) Oil red O staining for the detection of lipid accumulation in induced steatotic HepG2 (20× optical zoom). (B) Effect of oleic acid on TG content HepG2; the TG content in the cells increased significantly after the treatment with 0.6 mM OA compared with the control group.
Figure 2(A) Western blot analyses of perilipin-2 (upper band) in NAFLD versus control. (B) The signals of beta-actin (lower band) were used to normalize the amounts of loaded protein samples in the densitometric analyses. * indicates a p value < 0.05.
Figure 3(A) Differentially regulated proteins in NAFLD (S), compared with control (C) resulted from label free analysis. Green represents downregulated proteins (log2 ratio ≤ −0.5). Red represents upregulated proteins (log2 ratio ≥ 0.5). (B) Correlation analyses of the LFQ intensity of 2 biological and 3 technical replicates. Pearson’s correlation coefficient ≥ 0.9.
Figure 4Differentially regulated proteins in NAFLD (S), compared with control (C) resulted from SILAC analysis. Two biological and three technical triplicates.
Figure 5(A) Differentially regulated proteins in NAFLD (S), compared with control (C) resulted from TMT analyses; biological duplicates and technical triplicates. (B) Correlation analyses of the abundances of different samples labelled by TMT. (C) Heatmap of 2 controls and 2 NAFLD samples.
Figure 6Comparison of quantitative results obtained from different quantification approaches by Venn diagram.
Quantified proteins in NAFLD versus control samples obtained via three approaches.
| Log2 Ratio | Protein Accession Numbers | Protein Names | Gene Names | Unique Peptides | Molecular Weight (Da) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.44 | Q6FHZ7 | Perilipin-2 | ADFP | 14 | 48,075 |
| 1.83 | Q53GP1 | N-sulfoglucosamine sulfohydrolase | SGSH | 2 | 56,642 |
| 1.09 | P81605 | Dermcidin | DCD | 4 | 11,284 |
| 0.89 | J3KPX7 | Prohibitin-2 | PHB2 | 8 | 33,239 |
| 0.83 | B2R4R9 | 40S ribosomal protein S28 | RPS28 | 2 | 78,409 |
| 0.81 | Q9H477 | Ribokinase | RBKS | 2 | 34,143 |
| 0.76 | A0A024RA32 | Glycoprotein-N-acetylgalactosamine 3-beta-galactosyltransferase 1 | C1GALT1 | 2 | 42,202 |
| 0.76 | Q53H37 | Calmodulin-like protein 5 | CALML5 | 4 | 15,876 |
| 0.73 | Q5QNW6 | Histone H2B type 2-F | HIST2H2BF | 5 | 13,920 |
| 0.70 | A0A024R6I3 | Transmembrane emp24 domain-containing protein 10 | TMED10 | 3 | 24,976 |
| 0.70 | Q71UI9 | Histone H2A.V | H2AFV | 4 | 13,509 |
| 0.70 | Q7Z7M4 | Superoxide dismutase; mitochondrial | SOD2 | 5 | 23,672 |
| −0.81 | F6XU50 | Lymphoid-specific helicase | HELLS | 6 | 82,732 |
| −0.82 | B4DTD8 | Glypican-3; secreted glypican-3 | GPC3 | 3 | 63,727 |
| −0.83 | A7BI36 | Ribosome-binding protein 1 | RRBP1 | 83 | 165,750 |
| −0.83 | A0A1L5BXV2 | Receptor expression-enhancing protein | REEP6 | 2 | 20,733 |
| −0.87 | Q53G72 | B-cell receptor-associated protein 31 | BCAP31 | 4 | 27,931 |
| −1.11 | B3KPF6 | Striatin-4 | STRN4 | 3 | 38,960 |
| −1.20 | Q96IF1 | LIM domain-containing protein ajuba | AJUBA | 5 | 56,933 |
| −1.46 | B4DZM3 | Ribosomal RNA processing protein 1 | RRP1 | 3 | 46,150 |
Canonical pathways modulated in NAFLD versus control cells.
| Ingenuity Canonical Pathways | z-Score | Molecules | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfolded protein response | 1.32 × 10−6 | −2.44 | CALR,HSP90B1,HSPA5,P4HB,PDIA6,UBXN4 |
| Protein kinase A signaling | 9.12 × 10−4 | −2.33 | CALML5,H1-2,H1-4,H1 5,MYH10,MYL12A,PDIA3,PRKAR1A,RHOA |
| Xenobiotic metabolism CAR signaling pathway | 3.09 × 10−2 | −2 | ALDH3A2,GSTZ1,HSP90B1,MGST1 |
| HER-2 signaling in breast cancer | 3.31 × 10−2 | −2 | ARF4,COX6B1,RPS6,YES1 |
| Insulin secretion signaling pathway | 6.61 × 10−2 | −2 | PDIA3,PRKAR1A,SSR4,YES1 |
| Xenobiotic metabolism PXR signaling pathway | 2.04 × 10−4 | −1.89 | ALDH3A2,CES1,CES2,GSTZ1,HSP90B1,MGST1,PRKAR1A |
| Sirtuin signaling pathway | 3.55 × 10−2 | −1.34 | H1-2,H1-4,H1-5,PRKDC,SOD2 |
| Cardiac hypertrophy signaling (enhanced) | 1.98 × 10−1 | −1.34 | CALML5,PDIA3,PRKAR1A,RHOA,RPS6 |
| Xenobiotic metabolism AHR signaling pathway | 1.95 × 10−3 | −1 | ALDH3A2,GSTZ1,HSP90B1,MGST1 |
| Opioid signaling pathway | 6.92 × 10−2 | −1 | AP1B1,CALML5,PRKAR1A,YES1 |
| Integrin signaling | 1.07 × 10−2 | −0.44 | ACTG1,ARF4,CAPNS1,MYL12A,RHOA |
| Cardiac hypertrophy signaling | 1.74 × 10−2 | −0.44 | CALML5,MYL12A,PDIA3,PRKAR1A,RHOA |
| Synaptogenesis signaling pathway | 4.57 × 10−2 | −0.44 | AP1B1,CALML5,PRKAR1A,RHOA,YES1 |
| Estrogen receptor signaling | 1.07 × 10−3 | −0.37 | HNRNPD,HSP90B1,MYL12A,PDIA3,PRKAR1A,PRKDC,RHOA,SOD2 |
| ILK signaling | 6.76 × 10−3 | 0.44 | ACTG1,KRT18,MYH10,MYH9,RHOA |
| Actin cytoskeleton signaling | 1.38 × 10−2 | 0.44 | ACTG1,MYH10,MYH9,MYL12A,RHOA |
| Hepatic fibrosis signaling pathway | 9.55 × 10−3 | 1.13 | CALML5,MYL12A,PRKAR1A,RHOA,SOD2,TFRC,YAP1 |
| Ferroptosis signaling pathway | 1.38 × 10−4 | 1.63 | ARF4,FDFT1,H2AX,SLC39A14,TFRC,YAP1 |
Figure 7Negatively induced pathways (blue hubs) in NAFLD versus control cells: (A) Synthesis of proteins and DNA metabolism. (B) Adhesion of epithelial cell pathways. The intensity of the color is positively related to the up- (red) or downregulation (green) of genes; orange lines lead to activation, blue lines lead to deactivation, yellow lines represent findings inconsistent with the state of the downstream molecule, and gray lines represent effects that were not predicted. The * indicates the presence of protein isoforms.
Figure 8Positively induced pathways (orange hubs) in NAFLD versus control cells: (A) organization of cytoplasm, (B) vasculogenesis, and (C) invasion of cell pathway. The * indicates the presence of protein isoforms.