Chen Xiaoguang, Liu Yumei, Zhu Xuemin, Lv Qiongxia
Animal Science and Technology School, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China. Email:
Animal Science and Technology School, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Cell J. 2021 Nov;23(6):640-649. doi: 10.22074/cellj.2021.7689. Epub 2021 Nov 23.
OBJECTIVE: Even a small fragment from the body of planarian can regenerate an entire animal, implying that the different fragments from this flatworm eventually reach the same solution. In this study, our aim was to reveal the differences and similarities in mechanisms between different regenerating fragments from this worm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, we profiled the dynamic proteome of regenerating head and tail to reveal the differences and similarities between different regenerating fragments using 2-DE combined with MALDITOF/ TOF MS. RESULTS: Proteomic profiles of head and tail regeneration identified a total of 516 differential expressed proteins (DEPs) and showed a great difference in quantity and fold changes of proteome profiles between the two scenarios. Briefly, out of the 516 DEPs, 314 were identified to be specific for anterior regeneration, while 165 were specific for posterior regeneration. Bioinformatics analysis showed a wide discrepancy in biological activities between two regenerative processes; especially, differentiation and development and signal transduction in head regeneration were much more complex than that in tail regeneration. Protein functional analysis combined with protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis showed a significant contribution of both Wnt and BMP signaling pathways to head regeneration not but tail regeneration. Additionally, several novel proteins showed completely opposite expression between head and tail regeneration. CONCLUSION: Proteomic profiles of head and tail regeneration identified a total of 516 differential expressed proteins (DEPs) and showed a great difference in quantity and fold changes of proteome profiles between the two scenarios. Briefly, out of the 516 DEPs, 314 were identified to be specific for anterior regeneration, while 165 were specific for posterior regeneration. Bioinformatics analysis showed a wide discrepancy in biological activities between two regenerative processes; especially, differentiation and development and signal transduction in head regeneration were much more complex than that in tail regeneration. Protein functional analysis combined with protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis showed a significant contribution of both Wnt and BMP signaling pathways to head regeneration not but tail regeneration. Additionally, several novel proteins showed completely opposite expression between head and tail regeneration.
目的:即使是涡虫身体的一小片段也能再生出完整的动物,这意味着这种扁虫的不同片段最终会达到相同的结果。在本研究中,我们的目的是揭示这种蠕虫不同再生片段之间机制的差异和相似性。 材料与方法:在本实验研究中,我们对再生头部和尾部的动态蛋白质组进行了分析,以使用二维电泳结合基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF/TOF MS)揭示不同再生片段之间的差异和相似性。 结果:头部和尾部再生的蛋白质组学图谱共鉴定出516个差异表达蛋白(DEP),并且在两种情况下蛋白质组图谱的数量和倍数变化存在很大差异。简而言之,在这516个DEP中,314个被鉴定为前部再生所特有,而165个为后部再生所特有。生物信息学分析表明,两个再生过程的生物活性存在很大差异;特别是,头部再生中的分化、发育和信号转导比尾部再生复杂得多。蛋白质功能分析结合蛋白质-蛋白质相互作用(PPI)分析表明,Wnt和BMP信号通路对头部再生有显著贡献,而对尾部再生没有。此外,几种新蛋白在头部和尾部再生之间表现出完全相反的表达。 结论:头部和尾部再生的蛋白质组学图谱共鉴定出516个差异表达蛋白(DEP),并且在两种情况下蛋白质组图谱的数量和倍数变化存在很大差异。简而言之,在这516个DEP中,314个被鉴定为前部再生所特有,而165个为后部再生所特有。生物信息学分析表明,两个再生过程的生物活性存在很大差异;特别是,头部再生中的分化、发育和信号转导比尾部再生复杂得多。蛋白质功能分析结合蛋白质-蛋白质相互作用(PPI)分析表明,Wnt和BMP信号通路对头部再生有显著贡献,而对尾部再生没有。此外,几种新蛋白在头部和尾部再生之间表现出完全相反的表达。
Dev Growth Differ. 2018-8
Nat Sci (Weinh). 2024-1
J Photochem Photobiol B. 2019-12-3
Bioelectrochemistry. 2019-11-29
Hum Genomics. 2019-12-3
Curr Top Dev Biol. 2019-5-2
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019
Kidney Int. 2019-2-26