Tear proteomic profile in three distinct ocular surface diseases: keratoconus, pterygium, and dry eye related to graft-versus-host disease.
Dry eye
Keratoconus
Proteomics
Pterygium
Tear film
Journal
Clinical proteomics
ISSN: 1542-6416
Titre abrégé: Clin Proteomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101184586
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Dec 2020
07 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
30
10
2019
accepted:
27
11
2020
entrez:
29
12
2020
pubmed:
30
12
2020
medline:
30
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diseases of the anterior segment of the eye may present different mechanisms, intensity of symptoms, and impact on the patients' quality of life and vision. The tear film is in direct contact with the ocular surface and cornea and can be easily accessed for sample collection, figuring as a promising source of potential biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment control. This study aimed to evaluate tear proteomic profile in 3 distinct ocular diseases: keratoconus (corneal ectasia), severe dry eye related to graft-versus-host-disease (tear film dysfunction and ocular inflammatory condition) and pterygium (conjunctival fibrovascular degenerative disease). Tear samples were collected from patients of each condition and a control group. By using mass spectrometric analysis combined with statistics and bioinformatics tools, a detailed comparison of protein profile was performed. After Student's t-test analyses comparing each condition to the control group, we found the following number of differentially expressed proteins: 7 in keratoconus group, 29 in pterygium group, and 79 in GVHD group. Following multivariate analyses, we also report potential candidates as biomarkers for each disease. We demonstrated herein that mass spectrometry-based proteomics was able to indicate proteins that differentiate three distinct ocular conditions, which is a promising tool for the diagnosis of ocular diseases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diseases of the anterior segment of the eye may present different mechanisms, intensity of symptoms, and impact on the patients' quality of life and vision. The tear film is in direct contact with the ocular surface and cornea and can be easily accessed for sample collection, figuring as a promising source of potential biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment control. This study aimed to evaluate tear proteomic profile in 3 distinct ocular diseases: keratoconus (corneal ectasia), severe dry eye related to graft-versus-host-disease (tear film dysfunction and ocular inflammatory condition) and pterygium (conjunctival fibrovascular degenerative disease).
METHODS
METHODS
Tear samples were collected from patients of each condition and a control group. By using mass spectrometric analysis combined with statistics and bioinformatics tools, a detailed comparison of protein profile was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After Student's t-test analyses comparing each condition to the control group, we found the following number of differentially expressed proteins: 7 in keratoconus group, 29 in pterygium group, and 79 in GVHD group. Following multivariate analyses, we also report potential candidates as biomarkers for each disease.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrated herein that mass spectrometry-based proteomics was able to indicate proteins that differentiate three distinct ocular conditions, which is a promising tool for the diagnosis of ocular diseases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33372592
doi: 10.1186/s12014-020-09307-5
pii: 10.1186/s12014-020-09307-5
pmc: PMC7720622
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
42Subventions
Organisme : Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
ID : 2014/19138-5
Références
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Jan 09;55(1):177-86
pubmed: 24282230
J Proteome Res. 2009 Nov;8(11):4889-905
pubmed: 19705875
Curr Eye Res. 2011 Mar;36(3):198-207
pubmed: 21275520
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D353-D361
pubmed: 27899662
Exp Eye Res. 2013 Dec;117:126-37
pubmed: 23880526
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2012 Nov;31(6):527-50
pubmed: 22732126
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 20;6:29629
pubmed: 27436115
Surv Ophthalmol. 1984 Jan-Feb;28(4):293-322
pubmed: 6230745
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 11;9(9):e106473
pubmed: 25210892
Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:2019-30
pubmed: 24143069
Mol Vis. 2010 Oct 02;16:1949-57
pubmed: 21031023
J Lipid Res. 2014 Feb;55(2):289-98
pubmed: 24287120
Cornea. 2003 Oct;22(7 Suppl):S19-27
pubmed: 14703704
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Feb 03;56(2):738-50
pubmed: 25648341
Nature. 2003 Mar 13;422(6928):198-207
pubmed: 12634793
Surv Ophthalmol. 2018 Sep - Oct;63(5):719-735
pubmed: 29551597
Mol Vis. 2010 Oct 13;16:2055-61
pubmed: 21042560
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018 Jul 2;59(8):3521-3530
pubmed: 30025099
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018 Nov 1;59(14):DES71-DES79
pubmed: 30481809
Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 Sep;54(5):521-529
pubmed: 28193107
Ocul Surf. 2008 Jan;6(1):24-43
pubmed: 18264653
Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 05;5:16305
pubmed: 26538482
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Mar 28;54(3):2385-92
pubmed: 23425692
Proteomics Clin Appl. 2007 Aug;1(8):876-88
pubmed: 21136741
Eye (Lond). 2011 Sep;25(9):1225-33
pubmed: 21701529
Blood. 2017 Sep 7;130(10):1259-1266
pubmed: 28705839
Metabolomics. 2013 Apr;9(2):280-299
pubmed: 23543913
Cornea. 2012 Dec;31(12):1417-21
pubmed: 22902494
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 27;6(1):e16437
pubmed: 21298010
Surv Ophthalmol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(4):297-319
pubmed: 9493273
Ann Hematol. 2017 Nov;96(11):1849-1855
pubmed: 28801815
Mol Vis. 2013 Oct 30;19:2124-34
pubmed: 24194634
Acta Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun;90(4):e303-9
pubmed: 22413749
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Jul 31;53(8):5052-9
pubmed: 22736608
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):276-283
pubmed: 28736335
Ophthalmology. 2003 Jun;110(6):1110-8
pubmed: 12799234