4.7 Article

Comparative Proteomic Analysis Reveals Sex and Estrogen Receptor β Effects in the Pressure Overloaded Heart

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 5829-5836

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr500749j

关键词

estrogen receptor; hypertrophy; pressure overload; proteomic; sex differences

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  2. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In pressure overload (PO), sex differences in humans and rodents have been well documented and estrogen receptor (ER) beta is considered cardioprotective. However, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Our aim was to investigate sex- and ER beta-specific effects in protein abundance in PO employing a 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis/mass spectrometry-based proteomics approach. We hypothesized major sex differences and ER beta-specific alterations consistent with cardioprotection in females. Two-month old male and female wild-type (WT) and ER beta knockout (BERKO) mice were subjected to transverse aortic constriction (TAC) for 9 weeks (n = 4/group). In WT mice, hypertrophy was significantly more pronounced in males than females, while this sex difference was abolished in BERKO mice. We found 82 protein spots modulated between TAC and sham in WT males, 31 in WT females, 114 in BERKO males, and 87 in BERKO females (P = 0.05). Our analysis revealed in WT and BERKO females an altered pattern of various proteins involved in structure and suggests a link between female sex and cytoskeletal integrity. In males, a set of proteins was identified that associate with mitochondrial bioenergetics and energy supply. We confirmed protein regulation by immunoblotting analysis. In conclusion, the proteomic response of the heart to PO is significantly modulated by ER beta and sex. We put forward that the observed differences may identify sex-specific targets for the treatment of heart failure, contributing toward more personalized medical care.

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