Cargando…
Proteomics/phosphoproteomics of left ventricular biopsies from patients with surgical coronary revascularization and pigs with coronary occlusion/reperfusion: remote ischemic preconditioning
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 tr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5550488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28794502 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07883-5 |
Sumario: | 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. |
---|