4.7 Article

Proteomics Reveals Age-Related Differences in the Host Immune Response to Sepsis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 422-432

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr400814s

关键词

sepsis; severe sepsis; proteomics; CAP; plasma; aging; immunosenescence; pneumonia

资金

  1. University of Pittsburgh
  2. Central Medical Research Funds
  3. National Institute of General Medical Science (NIGMS) [R01 GM61992]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sepsis is commonly caused by community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and may develop into severe sepsis, characterized by multiple organ failure. The risk of severe sepsis among CAP patients and subsequent mortality increases sharply after the age of 65. The molecular mechanisms associated with this age-related risk are not fully understood. To better understand factors involved with increased incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the elderly, we used a nested case-control study of patients enrolled in a multicenter observational cohort of 2320 participants with CAP. We identified a total of 39 CAP patients 50-65 and 70-85 years old who did or did not develop severe sepsis. Plasma samples were obtained on presentation to the emergency department and prior to therapeutic interventions. A semiquantitative plasma proteomics workflow was applied which incorporated tandem immunoaffinity depletion, iTRAQ labeling, strong cation exchange fractionation, and nanoflow liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry. In total, 772 proteins were identified, of which 58 proteins exhibit statistically significant differences in expression levels among patients with severe sepsis as a function of age. Differentially expressed proteins are involved in pathways such as acute phase response, coagulation signaling, atherosclerosis signaling, lipid metabolism, and production of nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species. This study provides insight into factors that may explain age-related differences in incidence of severe sepsis in the elderly.

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

4.7
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