Arthritis & Rheumatism, Volume 62,
November 2010 Abstract Supplement

Abstracts of the American College of
Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals
Annual Scientific Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia November 6-11, 2010.


Major Differences among Proteomes of Macro-Vascular and Micro-Vascular Endothelial Cells: 2D-DIGE Approach.

Dib1,  Hanadi, Chafey3,  Philippe, Clary3,  Guilhem, Le Gall3,  Morgane, Broussard4,  Cedric, Camoin4,  Luc, Federici3,  Christian

INSERM 1016, Cochin Institute, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
INSERM 1016, Cochin Institute, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
INSERM 1016, Cochin Institute, Paris, France
Proteomics Platform of Paris Descartes, Paris, France

Rationale:

Progress on the isolation and culture of various endothelial cells (EC) has allowed comparison of their biochemical and physiologic properties. However, very few studies compared the proteomes of EC from different sources.

Objective:

To compare proteomes of macro-vascular and micro-vascular EC.

Methods:

Proteomes of human umbilical vein EC (HUVEC) and 2 sources of micro-vascular EC, human pulmonary (HMVEC-P) and dermal micro-vascular EC (HMVEC-D) from healthy Caucasian donors (4 in each group) were compared using two-dimension differential in gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE) at pH ranges of 3–11 and 4–7 and mass spectrometry.

Results:

Among the 2167+/-50 protein spots detected in pH 4–7 gels, 100 were differentially expressed between HUVEC and micro-vascular EC with a ratio >= 2 and a T-test <= 0.01. Sixty-three proteins were identified including fatty acid binding protein 4 and retinal dehydrogenase 1 that were over-expressed in micro-vascular EC at 235.7 and 5.8 average ratio, respectively. Ingenuity software analysis interestingly showed that numerous proteins over-expressed in micro-vascular EC are implicated in the retinoic acid pathway. Sixteen protein spots were differentially expressed between HMVEC-D and HMVEC-P with a ratio >= 2 and a T-test <= 0.01 in pH 4–7 gels and 9 were identified. In pH 3–11 gels, 41 protein spots were differentially expressed between HUVEC and HMVEC-D and HMVEC-P with a ratio >= 2 and for a T-test <= 0.01. Among these protein spots, 33 were identified. Four protein spots were differentially expressed between HMVEC-D and HMVEC-P with an average ratio >= 2 and for a T-test <= 0.01 and were identified, corresponding to cytoskeleton proteins or enzymes implicated in glycolysis.

Conclusion:

Major differences were observed between proteomes of macro-vascular and micro-vascular EC. Some of the differentially expressed proteins might be of great importance in the homeostasis and pathophysiology of EC.

To cite this abstract, please use the following information:
Dib, Hanadi, Chafey, Philippe, Clary, Guilhem, Le Gall, Morgane, Broussard, Cedric, Camoin, Luc, et al; Major Differences among Proteomes of Macro-Vascular and Micro-Vascular Endothelial Cells: 2D-DIGE Approach. [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62 Suppl 10 :834
DOI: 10.1002/art.28602

Abstract Supplement

Meeting Menu

2010 ACR/ARHP