4.6 Article

Profound changes in cerebrospinal fluid proteome and metabolic profile are associated with congenital hydrocephalus

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 3400-3414

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X211039612

关键词

Hydrocephalus; CSF proteome; metabolism; LC-MS; Qiagen pathway analysis

资金

  1. Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A proteomics study was conducted on hydrocephalic and normal rat CSF, revealing a transformation in the proteome across embryonic days 17-20. Predictions were made on the top molecular regulators that control the shift in CSF metabolic signature, along with potential key biomarkers for early detection of these changes.
The aetiology of congenital hydrocephalus (cHC) has yet to be resolved. cHC manifests late in rodent gestation, and by 18-22 weeks in human fetuses, coinciding with the start of the major phase of cerebral cortex development. Previously we found that cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) accumulation is associated with compositional changes, folate metabolic impairment and consequential arrest in cortical development. Here, we report a proteomics study on hydrocephalic and normal rat CSF using LC-MSMS and a metabolic pathway analysis to determine the major changes in metabolic and signalling pathways. Non-targeted analysis revealed a proteome transformation across embryonic days 17-20, with the largest changes between day 19 and 20. This provides evidence for a physiological shift in CSF composition and identifies some of the molecular mechanisms unleashed during the onset of cHC. Top molecular regulators that may control the shift in the CSF metabolic signature are also predicted, with potential key biomarkers proposed for early detection of these changes that might be used to develop targeted early therapies for this condition. This study confirms previous findings of a folate metabolic imbalance as well as providing more in depth metabolic analysis and understanding of cHC CSF.

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

4.6
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