| Literature DB >> 36185601 |
Asfa Alli-Shaik1, Beiying Qiu1,2,3, Siew Li Lai1, Ning Cheung2,4,3, Gavin Tan2,4,3, Suat Peng Neo1, Alison Tan2,3, Chiu Ming Gemmy Cheung2,4,3, Wanjin Hong1, Tien Yin Wong2,4,5, Xiaomeng Wang1,2,3, Jayantha Gunaratne1,6.
Abstract
Rationale: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a major complication of diabetes mellitus causing significant vision loss. DR is a multifactorial disease involving changes in retinal microvasculature and neuronal layers, and aberrations in vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and inflammatory pathways. Despite the success of anti-VEGF therapy, many DR patients do not respond well to the treatment, emphasizing the involvement of other molecular players in neuronal and vascular aberrations in DR.Entities:
Keywords: ADAM10; diabetic retinopathy; ectodomain shedding; sheddase; vitreous proteome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36185601 PMCID: PMC9516227 DOI: 10.7150/thno.72947
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.600
Demographic description of patients
| Cohort Description | ERM, | PDR, |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 66 ± 5.5 | 55 ± 10.9 |
| 10 | 14 | |
| 10 | 6 | |
| Right/Left eye (n/n) | 10/10 | 12/8 |
| IOP (mm Hg)† | 15.7 ± 1.8 | 18.3 ± 4.3 |
| HBA1c | * | 8.1 ± 1.56 |
*HBA1c available only for 5 patients (mean = 6.42 ± 1.29);
† Intraocular pressure in study eye.
Figure 1Deep proteome profiling of PDR vitreous. (A) Vitreous proteome profiling workflow. (B) Comparison of average quantified proteins in the PDR and control ERM sample groups. (C) Cellular component distribution of quantified vitreous proteins. (D) Ranked protein abundances in PDR and control ERM groups based on median vitreous protein abundance distribution within the groups. The top 15 most abundant proteins are highlighted.
Figure 2Proteome landscape of PDR vitreous. (A) Principal component analysis of PDR and ERM samples based on protein expression. (B) Hierarchical clustering of samples based on z-score normalized relative abundance is shown as a heatmap. (C) Global correlation map of all proteins across the PDR samples by assessing the Pearson correlation coefficients of all protein combinations. Highly correlated protein clusters are highlighted along with their functional annotation terms. Positive correlations are indicated by deep brown and negative correlations are shown as blue.
Figure 3Altered proteome profiles in PDR vitreous. (A) Volcano plot showing differentially expressed proteins (adj. p < 0.05 and 1.5-fold change). Red and blue represent proteins showing increased and decreased abundance in PDR vitreous. Top differentially expressed proteins are highlighted. The PDR overexpressed proteins are indicated by red and underexpressed proteins are indicated by blue. (B) Boxplot showing protein abundance levels of semaphorin signaling components. (C) Vitreous protein interaction network of PDR-altered proteome is shown. Densely connected protein modules extracted from the network are highlighted along with their functional annotation. Node sizes correspond to the number of associations shared by the protein with its neighbors. Hub proteins based on network centrality is shown within grey box.
Figure 4Impaired ectodomain shedding in PDR. (A) Topological analysis of predicted cleaved and shed substrates in the vitreous. (B) Proteins displaying differential proteolytic cleavage across the PDR and the control groups are shown. Peptides shown in blue and red indicate reduced or increased abundance by 1.5-fold in the PDR group, and those in grey indicate no change in peptide levels between the two groups. The protein lengths are normalized to a scale of 100 for visualization. (C) Sheddase mapping of the predicted substrates is visualized as a heatmap. Green indicates that the protein is a known substrate of the corresponding sheddase.
Figure 5Shedding of ADAM10 substrates impaired in PDR. (A) Overview of selected ADAM10 substrates found to be modulated in PDR vitreous and their respective functional involvement is shown. (B) Western blot analysis of sAPPα in ERM and PDR sample groups. Representative blot is shown. Data for the plot are presented as mean ± s.e.m. Statistical analysis was determined by unpaired, two-tailed Mann Whitney test; *** p < 0.001 (C) Targeted proteomics assay to monitor specific peptides in the fragment cleaved by ADAM10 within the ectodomain region of APP. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. Statistical analysis was determined by unpaired, two-tailed Mann Whitney test; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001. (D) Targeted proteomics assay to monitor specific peptides generated by sequential cleavage of ITM2B in the ectodomain region. Peptide 209-221 is obtained by ADAM10 cleavage following prior cleavage by furin to generate fragments containing the other two indicated peptides. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. Statistical analysis was determined by unpaired, two-tailed Mann Whitney test; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.
Figure 6ADAM10's activator EGCG inhibits the activation of human retinal endothelial cells (HRECs) ADAM10 activity impairment in ocular disease models are shown. (A) ADAM10 activity in retinae from control mice and OIR mice. n = 3. (B) ADAM10 activity in choroid/RPE from control mice and CNV mice. n = 4. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. Statistical analysis was determined by unpaired, two-tailed Student's t-test; * p < 0.05. (C) AlamarBlue assay demonstrated inhibition of HRECs viability by 50 µM EGCG following 24 h treatment (n = 3). (D) DAPI staining demonstrated inhibition of HRECs migration by 50 µM EGCG following 4 h treatment (n = 3). (E) EGCG inhibits choroidal vessel outgrowth in a dose-dependent manner. Representative images (left) and quantitative analysis (right) of microvessel formation from mouse choroidal explants demonstrating a significant inhibitory effect of EGCG (n = 3 independent experimental groups, n ≥ 6 explants per treatment group). (F) EGCG inhibits aortic vessel sprouts at the dosage of 50 µM. Representative images (left) and quantitative analysis (right) of macrovessel formation from mouse aortic explants demonstrating a significant inhibitory effect of EGCG (n = 3 independent experimental groups, n ≥ 6 explants per treatment group). Scale bar: 100 µm. All images shown are representative, and data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test or unpaired, two-tailed Student's t-test; * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001.
Figure 7AXL is ADAM10's downstream substrate and ADAM10's function is dependent on the activity of AXL. (A) Full-length AXL protein levels in HREC with 50 µM ADAM10 activator EGGC or 10 µM ADAM10 inhibitor GI 254023X is shown at both 4- and 24-h post treatment. GAPDH is used as loading control (B) Combination treatment of AXL inhibitor R428 and ADAM10 activator EGCG have no additive effects on HRECs viability. AlamarBlue assay demonstrated inhibition of HRECs viability by 50 µM EGCG, 1 µM R428 or combination treatment of 50 µM EGCG, 1 µM R428 following 24 h treatment (n = 3). (C) Combination treatment of AXL inhibitor R428 and ADAM10 activator EGCG have no additive effects on HRECs migration. DAPI staining demonstrated inhibition of HRECs migration by 50 µM EGCG, 5 µM R428 or combination treatment of 50 µM EGCG, 5 µM R428 following 4 h treatment (n = 3). (D) R428 reverses the promoting effect of EGCG inhibitor GI 254023X on HRECs viability. AlamarBlue assay demonstrated effects of HRECs viability by 10 µM GI 254023X, 1 µM R428 or combination treatment of 10 µM GI 254023X, 1 µM R428 following 24 h treatment (n = 3). (E) R428 reverses the promoting effect of GI 254023X on HRECs migration. DAPI staining demonstrated effects of HRECs migration by 10 µM GI 254023X, 5 µM R428 or combination treatment of 10 µM GI 254023X, 5 µM R428 following 4 h treatment (n = 3). Scale bar: 100 µm. All images shown are representative, and data are presented as means ± s.e.m. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test; ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001.