4.3 Article

Cerebrospinal fluid proteome comparison between multiple sclerosis patients and controls

Journal

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 90-96

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ane.12029

Keywords

multiple sclerosis; cerebrospinal fluid; biomarkers; proteomics; label-free quantitative mass spectrometry; IgG; vitamin D-binding protein

Funding

  1. Kristian Gerhard Jebsen Foundation
  2. National Program for Research in Functional Genomics (FUGE)
  3. Research Council of Norway
  4. Western Norway Regional Healthy Authority
  5. Leiv Eiriksson Mobility Program
  6. Meltzer Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives - The aim of the present study was to identify proteins in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with different abundance between patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and controls. Such proteins may be diagnostic biomarkers and contribute with novel information about the disease pathogenesis. Materials and methods - Cerebrospinal fluid from patients with RRMS (n = 17) and controls (n = 17) were trypsin digested and analyzed in a label-free fashion using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. The resulting data were analyzed using SearchGUI, PeptideShaker, and the Progenesis software. Results - Two hundred and ninety-one proteins were identified, of which 32 were significantly differentially abundant between the patients with RRMS and controls (P-value <= 0.05, two or more peptides quantified). Among these were proteins which previously have been linked to MS, including immunoglobulin subunits, vitamin D-binding protein, apolipoprotein D, kallikrein-6, neuronal pentraxin receptor, Dickkopf-related protein 3, and contactin-1. Conclusion - The study provides an overview of differentially abundant proteins between RRMS and controls, and a few of these are further discussed. It should be stressed that a larger verification study is needed to reveal the potential value of these proteins as biomarkers for RRMS and their involvement in the disease pathogenesis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available