4.1 Article

Integrative investigation of lipidome and signal pathways in human endothelial cells under oxidative stress

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOSYSTEMS
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 2428-2440

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c1mb00002k

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20736006]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2007CB714301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phospholipids in human endothelial cells (ECs), cell line EA.hy926, were profiled by a novel lipidomics approach, combining liquid chromatography (LC)-ion trap mass spectrometry (MS) and LC-tandem quadrupole MS. More than 200 species of phospholipids were quantified. Twenty-eight were identified as the most discriminant species in response to different levels of oxidative stress induced by hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). H2O2 treatment induced phosphorylation of cytosolic phospholipase A(2) (cPLA(2)) via the activation of extracellular-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2), increasing the production of lysophosphatidylethanolamine (LPE) and lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC). The release of arachidonic acid (AA, 20 : 4) increased from no H2O2 exposure to 1 h exposure, decreased from 1 h to 2 h, and increased again from 2 h to 4 h exposure time. The particular increase seen of phosphatidylcholine (PC) species that include AA chains from 1 h to 2 h indicates that the released AA is reincorporating into PC molecules to reduce the extension of the AA cascade. The change in free AA levels seen suggests possible defense mechanisms to oxidative injury in ECs. We further verified nine species as potential biomarkers by adding inhibitor and demonstrated direct correlation to the activity of the cPLA(2)-AA pathway. The oxidative injury to cell line EA.hy926 provided a novel application for a combined lipidomics and signal transduction approach. This combined approach has enabled future investigations for possible therapeutic interventions in phospholipids and cPLA(2) activity for defense against oxidative cellular stress.

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