Proteomics/phosphoproteomics of left ventricular biopsies from patients with surgical coronary revascularization and pigs with coronary occlusion/reperfusion: remote ischemic preconditioning
Abstract Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) by repeated brief cycles of limb ischemia/reperfusion reduces myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury. In left ventricular (LV) biopsies from patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), only the activation of signal transducer and activa...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/aa6a00b31d2640908e8cdccec0bfb8a4 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) by repeated brief cycles of limb ischemia/reperfusion reduces myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury. In left ventricular (LV) biopsies from patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), only the activation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 5 was associated with RIPC’s cardioprotection. We have now used an unbiased, non-hypothesis-driven proteomics and phosphoproteomics approach to analyze LV biopsies from patients undergoing CABG and from pigs undergoing coronary occlusion/reperfusion without (sham) and with RIPC. False discovery rate-based statistics identified a higher prostaglandin reductase 2 expression at early reperfusion with RIPC than with sham in patients. In pigs, the phosphorylation of 116 proteins was different between baseline and early reperfusion with RIPC and/or with sham. The identified proteins were not identical for patients and pigs, but in-silico pathway analysis of proteins with ≥2-fold higher expression/phosphorylation at early reperfusion with RIPC in comparison to sham revealed a relation to mitochondria and cytoskeleton in both species. Apart from limitations of the proteomics analysis per se, the small cohorts, the sampling/sample processing and the number of uncharacterized/unverifiable porcine proteins may have contributed to this largely unsatisfactory result. |
|---|