| Title |
Proteomics and Transcriptomics Analyses of Secretagogin Down-Regulation in Human Non-Functional Pituitary Adenomas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pituitary, December 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1023/b:pitu.0000023426.99808.40 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xianquan Zhan, Chheng-Orn Evans, Nelson M. Oyesiku, Dominic M. Desiderio |
| Abstract |
In order to explore the presence of, and the potential role of, secretagogin in human pituitary adenomas, an analytical strategy that integrated comparative proteomics and comparative transcriptomics was used to detect the protein and the mRNA expression, respectively, of secretagogin in human non-functional pituitary adenomas compared to controls. Proteomics methods included two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, 2D gel image analysis, mass spectrometry [matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight-peptide mass fingerprinting (MALDI-TOF PMF) and liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-quadrupole-ion trap tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-Q-IT MS/MS)], and database analysis. Transcriptomics methods included the GeneChip microarray, image processing, and data analysis. The proteomics and transcriptomics data demonstrated that secretagogin was significantly down-regulated at the protein and mRNA levels, respectively, in the human non-functional (NF) pituitary adenomas (NF-, LH+, FSH+, and FSH+ + LH+). For the secretagogin protein, the expression level was NF- < FSH+ + LH+ < FSH+ < LH+ < Control, with a range of down-regulation of 2.2-6.9 fold in non-functional pituitary adenomas compared to controls, with a significant difference (p < 0.001). For secretagogin mRNA, the expression level was NF- < LH+ < FSH+ + LH+ < FSH+ < Control, with a range of down-regulation of 1.8-18.6 fold in non-functional pituitary adenomas compared to controls that was significant (p < 0.05). The secretagogin protein expression correlated significantly with its mRNA expression. Those results suggest that secretagogin might play a role in human non-functional pituitary adenomas. This novel finding may provide clues to clarify the basic molecular mechanisms of pituitary adenoma formation, and to identify new tumor-related markers. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 20% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Pituitary
#172
of 549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,085
of 142,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pituitary
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 549 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 142,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them