4.1 Article

Quantitative proteomic analysis reveals heat stress-induced injury in rat small intestine via activation of the MAPK and NF-kappa B signaling pathways

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOSYSTEMS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 826-834

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4mb00495g

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31272478]
  2. National Twelve-Five Technological Supported Plan of China [2011BAD34B01]
  3. Ministry of Agriculture, Public Service Sectors Agriculture Research Projects [201003060-9/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intestinal epithelium plays a critical role in absorbing nutrients and maintaining the integrity of the gut barrier. Extreme heat stress induces damage to the intestinal epithelium. However, the protein expression changes and the mechanism behind this damage remain poorly understood. In this study, morphological observation showed that heat stress induced desquamation of intestinal epithelial cells, and destruction of intestinal microvilli and mitochondria. Heat stress-induced changes in the intestinal proteome were quantified using the iTRAQ method followed by mass spectrometry and software analysis. A total of 1689 proteins were identified in rat intestine tissue, of which 41 showed significantly altered expression between the heat stressed and control groups. However, these proteins with significant alterations were involved in biological processes such as cellular assembly and organization, developmental disorder, organismal injury and abnormalities, and inflammation. We found that members of the MAPK and NF-kappa B signaling pathways act as hub proteins in the network interaction analysis. Furthermore, western blot analysis verified that the MAPK and NF-kappa B signaling pathways were activated by heat stress as expected. This study suggests that heat stress induces cell cytoskeleton reorganization and an inflammatory response, and the activation of the MAPK and NF-kappa B signaling pathways, which may ultimately contribute to intestinal injury.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据