4.4 Article

Genomic and proteomic profiling of oxidative stress response in human diploid fibroblasts

期刊

BIOGERONTOLOGY
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 125-151

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10522-008-9157-3

关键词

Oxidative stress; Human diploid fibroblasts; Senescence; Gene expression; Proteomics

资金

  1. NIH [ES010826, HL076530, ES007091]
  2. Proteomics Facility Core of Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center [ES06694]
  3. Arizona Cancer Center [P30CA23074]
  4. Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center [ES06694]
  5. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA023074] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL076530] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [P30ES006694, T32ES007091, R01ES010826] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A number of lines of evidence suggest that senescence of normal human diploid fibroblasts (HDFs) in culture is relevant to the process of aging in vivo. Using normal human skin diploid fibroblasts, we examine the changes in genes and proteins following treatment with a mild dose of H2O2, which induces premature senescence. Multidimensional Protein Identification Technology (MudPIT) in combination with mass spectrometry analyses of whole cell lysates from HDFs detected 65 proteins in control group, 48 proteins in H2O2-treated cells and 109 proteins common in both groups. In contrast, cDNA microarray analyses show 173 genes up-regulated and 179 genes down-regulated upon H2O2 treatment. Both MudPIT and cDNA microarray analyses indicate that H2O2 treatment caused elevated levels of thioredoxin reductase 1. Semi-quantitative RT-PCR and Western-blot were able to verify the finding. Out of a large number of genes or proteins detected, only a small fraction shows the overlap between the outcomes of microarray versus proteomics. The low overlap suggests the importance of considering proteins instead of transcripts when investigating the gene expression profile altered by oxidative 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

4.4
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