Molecular changes in selected epithelial proteins in human keratoconus corneas compared to normal corneas.

Department of Vision Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Molecular vision (Impact Factor: 2.25). 02/2006; 12:1615-25.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to determine molecular changes in selected epithelial proteins in human keratoconus (KC) corneas compared to normal corneas.
Two-dimensional (2-D) gel electrophoretic profiles of epithelial cell proteins from normal and keratoconus corneas were compared, and the selected protein spots that showed either up- or downregulation were identified. The desired spots were identified after trypsin digestion and mass spectrometric analysis. Based on the results, two proteins, alpha-enolase and beta-actin, were further analyzed by immunohistochemical and western blot methods, using respective antibodies. To determine the presence of mRNA of the two proteins in the epithelial cells, RT-PCR studies were performed.
On comparison of the 2-D gel electrophoretic protein profiles, two protein spots were identified in normal corneas that were either absent or present at lower levels in keratoconus corneas. The two spots were determined to be alpha-enolase (48 kDa) and beta-actin (42 kDa) by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF), and ES-MS/MS mass spectrometric methods. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed that alpha-enolase and beta-actin were present at extremely low levels in the epithelial superficial and wing cells of the keratoconus corneas compared to these cells of normal corneas. 2-D gel electrophoresis followed by western blot analysis revealed relatively greater degradation of the two proteins in the keratoconus corneas compared to normal corneas. RT-PCR analysis showed the mRNA expression of the two proteins in the epithelial cells of both normal and keratoconus corneas.
The results showed relatively low or negligible levels of alpha-enolase and beta-actin in the wing and superficial epithelial cells of keratoconus corneas compared to normal corneas. This was attributed to relatively greater degradation of the two proteins in keratoconus corneas compared to normal corneas.


Available from: Deepa Chandrasekaran, May 01, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the involvement of Visual System Homeobox 1 (VSX1), Secreted Protein Acidic and Rich in Cysteine (SPARC), Superoxide Dismutase 1 (SOD1), Lysyl Oxidase (LOX), and Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase 3 (TIMP3) in sporadic and familial keratoconus. Mutational analysis of the five genes was performed by sequencing and fragment analysis in a large cohort of 302 Italian patients, with a diagnosis of keratoconus based on clinical examination and corneal topography. The variants identified in VSX1 and SPARC were also assessed in the available relatives of the probands. A novel mutation p.G239R and previously reported mutations were found in VSX1. Novel and already reported variants were identified in SPARC and SOD1, whose pathogenic significance has not been established. No pathogenic variants have been identified in LOX and TIMP3. Molecular analysis of the five genes in a cohort of 225 sporadic and 77 familial keratoconus cases confirms the possible pathogenic role of VSX1 though in a small number of patients; a possible involvement of LOX and TIMP3 could be excluded; and the role played by SOD1 and SPARC in determining the disease as not been definitively clarified. Further studies are required to identify other important genetic factors involved in the pathogenesis and progression of the disease that in the authors' opinion, and according with several authors, should be considered as a complex disease.
    Molecular vision 09/2011; 17:2482-94. · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To establish a baseline protein fingerprint of cultured human corneal endothelial cells (HCEC), to determine whether the protein profiles exhibit age-related differences, and to identify proteins differentially expressed in HCEC cultured from young and older donors. Corneas were obtained from five young (<30 years old) and five older donors (>50 years old). HCEC were cultured, and protein was extracted from confluent passage 3 cells. Extracts from each age group were pooled to form two samples. Proteins were separated on two-dimensional (2-D) gels and stained with SyproRuby. Resultant images were compared to identify protein spots that were either similarly expressed or differentially expressed by at least twofold. Protein spots were then identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry. Protein spots were well resolved, and patterns were reproducible on 2-D gels using either pH 3-10 or pH 4-7 IPG strips. Two-dimensional gels prepared with pH 4-7 IPG strips were used for differential display analysis, which was reproduced on three separate pairs of gels. MALDI-TOF identified 58 proteins with similar expression; 30 proteins were expressed twofold higher in HCEC from young donors; five proteins were expressed twofold higher in cells from older donors; and 10 proteins were identified in gels from young donors that did not match in gels from older donors. Several proteins expressed at higher levels in younger donors support metabolic activity, protect against oxidative damage, or mediate protein folding or degradation. This is the first proteomic comparison of proteins expressed in HCEC cultured from young and older donors. Although restricted to proteins with isoelectric points between pH 4.0 and pH 7.0, the data obtained represent an initial step in the investigation of molecular mechanisms that underlie physiologically important age-related differences in cultured HCEC, including differences that may affect proliferative capacity. Results indicate that HCEC from older donors exhibit reduced expression of proteins that support important cellular functions such as metabolism, antioxidant protection, protein folding, and protein degradation. These differences may affect the ability to consistently obtain a sufficient number of healthy cultured HCEC for use in preparing bioengineered endothelium as an alternative method for the treatment of endothelial dysfunction.
    Molecular vision 09/2008; 14:1805-14. · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify proteins differentially expressed between the tear film of keratoconus (KC) patients and control subjects using two dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) and mass spectrometry-based techniques. Twenty two patients (44 eyes) diagnosed with bilateral KC and 22 control subjects (44 eyes) were studied in a prospective case-control study. Keratoconus screening programs and Orbscan II topographies were performed on all participants. Tear samples were collected by the Schirmer I method using filter paper. Proteins were extracted from the Schirmer strips and separated by 2-DE. Comparison of protein patterns was performed using PDQuest Software and protein differences were identified by mass spectrometry. Finally, results were validated by western-blot. Four spots were identified to be differentially expressed between KC patients and control subjects. Three of them were more expressed in healthy subjects and they were identified as zinc-α2-glycoprotein (ZAG), lactoferrin, and IGKC (immunoglobulin kappa chain). The other spot was more expressed in KC patients and it was identified as ZAG. Differences in ZAG seem controversial in two different spots because different posttranslational modifications, however, analysis of both spots revealed that globally, ZAG is overexpressed in healthy subjects. Founded differences in ZAG, lactoferrin, and IGKC expression were subsequently validated by western blot. IGKC protein, ZAG, and lactoferrin are under-expressed in the tears of patients diagnosed with bilateral KC compared with healthy subjects. These differences could contribute to the knowledge of the pathophysiology of this disease.
    Molecular vision 10/2010; 16:2055-61. · 2.25 Impact Factor