The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identification of Tear Fluid Biomarkers in Dry Eye Syndrome Using iTRAQ Quantitative Proteomics
Abstract
The proteins found in tears have an important role in the maintenance of the ocular surface and changes in the quality and quantity of tear components reflect changes in the health of the ocular surface. In this study, we have used quantitative proteomics, iTRAQ technology coupled with 2D-nanoLC-nano-ESI-MS/MS and with a statistical model to uncover proteins that are significantly and reliably changed in the tears of dry eye patients in an effort to reveal potential biomarker candidates. Fifty-six patients with dry eye and 40 healthy subjects were recruited for this study. In total, 93 tear proteins were identified with a ProtScore >or=2 (>or=99% confidence). Associated with dry eye were 6 up-regulated proteins, alpha-enolase, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein 1, S100 A8 (calgranulin A), S100 A9 (calgranulin B), S100 A4 and S100 A11 (calgizzarin) and 4 down-regulated proteins, prolactin-inducible protein (PIP), lipocalin-1, lactoferrin and lysozyme. Receiver operating curves (ROC) were evaluated for individual biomarker candidates and a biomarker panel. With the use of a 4-protein biomarker panel, the diagnostic accuracy for dry eye was 96% (sensitivity, 91.0%; specificity, 90.0%). Two biomarker candidates (alpha-enolase and S100 A4) generated from iTRAQ experiments were successfully verified using an ELISA assay. The levels of these 10 tear proteins reflect aqueous secretion deficiency by lacrimal gland, inflammatory status of the ocular surface. The clinical classification of the severity of the dry eye condition was successfully correlated to the proteomics by using three proteins that are associated with inflammation, alpha1-acid glycoprotein 1, S100 A8 and S100 A9. The nine tear protein biomarker candidates (except alpha1-acid glycoprotein 1) were also verified using an independent age-matched patient sample set. This study demonstrated that iTRAQ technology combined with 2D-nanoLC-nanoESI-MS/MS quantitative proteomics is a powerful tool for biomarker discovery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ross, P. L., Huang, Y. N., Marchese, J. N., Williamson, B., Parker, K., Hattan, S., Khainovski, N., Pillai, S., Dey, S., Daniels, S., et al. (2004) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m400129-mcp200 · Cited by 4,401
Cited by
TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report
Wolffsohn, J. S., Arita, R., Chalmers, R., Djalilian, A., Dogru, M., Dumbleton, K., Gupta, P. K., Karpecki, P., Lazreg, S., Pult, H., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 · Cited by 2,122
Self-citationIn-depth analysis of the human tear proteome
Zhou, L., Zhao, S. Z., Koh, S. K., Chen, L., Vaz, C., Tanavde, V., Li, X. R., & Beuerman, R. W. (2012) · Journal of Proteomics · doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2012.04.053 · Cited by 379
Self-citationLam, S. M., Tong, L., Duan, X., Petznick, A., Wenk, M. R., & Shui, G. (2014) · Journal of Lipid Research · doi:10.1194/jlr.m044826 · Cited by 310
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, L., Beuerman, R. W., Chan, C. M., Zhao, S. Z., Li, X. R., Yang, H., Tong, L., Liu, S., Stern, M. E., & Tan, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Proteome Research
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2009-09-21
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4889-4905
- ISSN
- 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-3907
- OpenAlex
- W2091427621
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
