Comparison of the Proteome Profiling of Iranian isolates of Leishmania tropica, L. major and L. infantum by Two-Dimensional Electrophoresis (2-DE) and Mass-spectrometry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanisms of virulence and species differences of Leishmania parasites are under the influence of gene expression regulations at posttranscriptional stages. In Iran, L. major and L. tropica are known as principal agents of cutaneous leishmaniasis, while L. infantum causes visceral leishmaniasis. METHODS: As a preliminary study, we compared the proteome mapping of the above three Iranian isolates of Leishmania species through the 2-dimension electrophoresis (2-DE), and identified the prominent proteins by Liquid Chromatography (LC) mass spectrometry. RESULTS: We reproducibly detected about 700 protein spots in each species by using the Melanie software. Totally, 264 proteins exhibited significant changes among 3 species. Forty nine protein spots identified in both L. tropica and L. major were similar in position in the gel, whereas only 35 of L. major proteins and 10 of L. tropica proteins were matched with those of L. infantum. Having identified 24 proteins in the three species, we sought to provide possible explanations for their differential expression patterns and discuss their relevance to cell biology. CONCLUSION: The comparison of proteome profiling pattern of the 3 species identified limit up and limit down regulated or absent /present proteins. In addition, the LC-MS data analysis showed that most of the protein spots with differential abundance in the 3 species are involved in cell motility and cytoskeleton, cell signaling and vesicular trafficking, intracellular survival / proteolysis, oxidative stress defense, protein synthesis, protein ubiquitination / proteolysis, and stress related proteins. Differentially proteins distributed among the species maybe implicated in host pathogenecity interactions and parasite tropism to cutaneous or visceral tissue macrophages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".