Relationship between SAA and sepsis and its biological significance

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9133.2018.05.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To study the biomarkers related to sepsis quantitatively and qualitatively with a CLP mice model and proteomic analysis.

Methods

85 mice were divided into model group and sham operation group to make a model of CLP sepsis in mice, to observe the natural process of the development of sepsis. At the same time, iTRAQ method was used to detect and identify the serum protein at the critical time point. The key molecules closely related to the process of sepsis were determined, and the expression of mRNA in different tissues was observed by qPCR method.

Results

The survival curve showed that 12 - 32 h of sepsis mice was the key time of death, and then went into the natural recovery period. At the same time, a group of proteins were found to match the process in appearance, peak and recovery time. Protein identification confirmed that the proteins included SAA1 and SAA2, and the expression levels were equal. Examination of SAA1 mRNA expression in different tissues revealed that the liver was the main site for the synthesis of SAA1, but extrahepatic tissue was the source of the so-called acute phase response protein SAA1.

Conclusions

SAA may have a variety of biological functions. The serum SAA detected by conventional methods is a mixture of SAA1 and SAA2, and the extrahepatic tissue is the main source of detected serum SAA, which can be used as a biomarker for sepsis. SAA synthesized in the liver is transported through specific pathways and may be involved in the rehabilitation of sepsis.

Key words: Sepsis, iTRAQ, Serum amyloid A1, Cecal ligation and puncture

Kai Feng, Yanhua Zheng, Heming Yang, kui Wang, Gang Zhang, Maoxing Yue, Jinnan Yin. Relationship between SAA and sepsis and its biological significance[J]. Chinese Journal of Hygiene Rescue(Electronic Edition), 2018, 04(05): 290-297.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhwsyjdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-9133.2018.05.005

https://zhwsyjdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V04/I05/290

Figures/Tables 6

References 24

1	Angus DC，Wax RS.Epidemiology of sepsis: An update[J]．Crit Care Med，2001，29(7 Suppl):S109-S116.
2	Garcia-Lamberechts EJ，Nunez Orantos MJ，Martin-Sanchez FJ，et al.Epidemiology of sepsis in the emergency care department[J]．Med Intensiva，2016，40(5):322.
3	Stoller J，Halpin L，Weis M，et al.Epidemiology of severe sepsis: 2008-2012[J]．J Crit Care，2016，31(1):58-62.
4	Zhou J，Tian H，Du X，et al.Population-based epidemiology of sepsis in a subdistrict of beijing[J]．Crit Care Med，2017，45(7):1168-1176.
5	He Y，Du WX，Jiang HY，et al.Multiplex cytokine profiling identifies interleukin-27 as a novel biomarker for neonatal early onset sepsis[J]．Shock，2017，47(2):140-147.
6	Mikacenic C，Price BL，Harju-Baker S，et al.A two-biomarker model predicts mortality in the critically ill with sepsis[J]．Am J Respir Crit Care Med，2017，196(8):1004-1011.
7	梁华平，马晓媛，孙宇．脓毒症的精准诊治-未来的发展方向[J/CD]．中华卫生应急电子杂志，2016，2(4):213-216.
8	王正国，梁华平．战创伤感染与脓毒症防治新策略[J/CD]．中华卫生应急电子杂志，2015，1(1):1-3.
9	Ahasic AM，Christiani DC.Personalized critical care medicine：How far away are we？[J]．Semin Respir Crit Care Med，2015，36(6):809-822.
10	Ludwig KR，Hummon AB.Mass spectrometry for the discovery of biomarkers of sepsis[J]．Mol Biosyst，2017，13(4):648-664.
11	Remick DG，Newcomb DE，Bolgos GL，et al.Comparison of the mortality and inflammatory response of two models of sepsis：Lipopolysaccharide vs.Cecal ligation and puncture[J]．Shock，2000，13(2):110-116.
12	Wisniewski JR，Zougman A，Nagaraj N，et al.Universal sample preparation method for proteome analysis[J]．Nat Methods，2009，6(5):359-362.
13	Chu P，Yan GX，Yang Q，et al.Itraq-based quantitative proteomics analysis of brassica napus leaves reveals pathways associated with chlorophyll deficiency[J]．J Proteomics，2015，(113):244-259.
14	Ross PL，Huang YN，Marchese JN，et al.Multiplexed protein quantitation in saccharomyces cerevisiae using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents[J]．Mol Cell Proteomics，2004，3(12):1154-1169.
15	Sellar GC，Jordan SA，Bickmore WA，et al.The human serum amyloid a protein (saa) superfamily gene cluster: Mapping to chromosome 11p15.1 by physical and genetic linkage analysis[J]．Genomics，1994，19(2):221-227.
16	Lowell CA，Potter DA，Stearman RS，et al.Structure of the murine serum amyloid a gene family. Gene conversion[J]．J Biol Chem，1986，261(18):8442-8452.
17	De Buck M，Gouwy M，Wang JM，et al.Structure and expression of different serum amyloid a (saa) variants and their concentration-dependent functions during host insults[J]．Curr Med Chem，2016，23(17):1725-1755.
18	Ye RD，Sun L．Emerging functions of serum amyloid a in inflammation[J]．J Leukoc Biol，2015，98(6):923-929.
19	Getz GS，Reardon CA.SAA，HDL biogenesis，and inflammation[J]．J Lipid Res，2008，49(2):269-270.
20	Song C，Hsu K，Yamen E，et al.Serum amyloid a induction of cytokines in monocytes/macrophages and lymphocytes[J]．Atherosclerosis，2009，207(2):374-383.
21	De Buck M，Berghmans N，Portner N，et al.Serum amyloid A1α induces paracrine IL-8/CXCL8 via TLR2 and directly synergizes with this chemokine via CXCR2 and formyl peptide receptor 2 to recruit neutrophils[J]．J Leukoc Biol，2015，98(6):1049-1060.
22	Gouwy M，De Buck M，Portner N，et al.Serum amyloid a chemoattracts immature dendritic cells and indirectly provokes monocyte chemotaxis by induction of cooperating cc and cxc chemokines[J]．Eur J Immunol，2015，45(1):101-112.
23	Connolly M，Marrelli A，Blades M，et al.Acute serum amyloid a induces migration, angiogenesis, and inflammation in synovial cells in vitro and in a human rheumatoid arthritis/scid mouse chimera model[J]．J Immunol，2010，184(11):6427-6437.
24	Shah C，Hari-Dass R，Raynes JG.Serum amyloid a is an innate immune opsonin for gram-negative bacteria[J]．Blood，2006，108(5):1751-1757.

Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Apoa5	0.97	0.97	0.99	0.74	0.77	10.4
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
SAA1	0.80	0.62	0.78	0.49	0.64	1.09
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Itih4	1.02	1.27	1.25	0.95	1.38	1.45
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Ang	0.82	0.97	1.91	0.74	1.02	1.38
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Fstl1	1.05	0.88	0.83	1.12	1.15	1.03
P值	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Itih3	0.99	1.13	1.15	0.94	1.17	1.25
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Psmb9	0.96	0.92	0.96	0.81	0.87	1.09
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Lbp	0.93	0.77	0.83	0.69	0.82	1.19
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
SAA2	1.00	0.74	0.74	0.47	0.56	1.18
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Igh-VJ558	1.20	1.05	0.88	1.12	1.35	1.21
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
SAA4	1.20	1.04	0.87	1.01	1.22	1.20
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Pigr	0.96	0.95	0.99	0.82	0.94	1.14
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Masp1	1.20	1.10	1.08	0.87	1.17	1.35
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	<0.05

Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Apoa5	0.97	0.97	0.99	0.74	0.77	10.4
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
SAA1	0.80	0.62	0.78	0.49	0.64	1.09
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Itih4	1.02	1.27	1.25	0.95	1.38	1.45
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Ang	0.82	0.97	1.91	0.74	1.02	1.38
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Fstl1	1.05	0.88	0.83	1.12	1.15	1.03
P值	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Itih3	0.99	1.13	1.15	0.94	1.17	1.25
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Psmb9	0.96	0.92	0.96	0.81	0.87	1.09
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Lbp	0.93	0.77	0.83	0.69	0.82	1.19
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
SAA2	1.00	0.74	0.74	0.47	0.56	1.18
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Igh-VJ558	1.20	1.05	0.88	1.12	1.35	1.21
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
SAA4	1.20	1.04	0.87	1.01	1.22	1.20
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Pigr	0.96	0.95	0.99	0.82	0.94	1.14
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	72 vs 32(sh)	72 vs 8(sh)	32 vs 8(sh)	72 vs 32(se)	72 vs 8(se)	32 vs 8(se)
Masp1	1.20	1.10	1.08	0.87	1.17	1.35
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05	<0.05

Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Apoa5	1.38	1.44	1.10
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
SAA1	1.43	2.39	1.47
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Itih4	1.05	1.22	1.14
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Ang	1.00	1.16	1.05
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Fstl1	1.04	1.29	1.37
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Itih3	1.07	1.17	1.11
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Psmb9	1.03	1.17	0.98
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Lbp	1.22	1.75	1.30
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
SAA2	1.56	2.47	1.17
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Igh-VJ558	0.94	1.30	1.21
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
SAA4	1.02	1.42	1.19
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Pigr	1.08	1.24	1.07
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Masp1	0.98	1.23	1.04
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Apoa5	1.38	1.44	1.10
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
SAA1	1.43	2.39	1.47
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Itih4	1.05	1.22	1.14
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Ang	1.00	1.16	1.05
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Fstl1	1.04	1.29	1.37
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Itih3	1.07	1.17	1.11
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Psmb9	1.03	1.17	0.98
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Lbp	1.22	1.75	1.30
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
SAA2	1.56	2.47	1.17
P值	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Igh-VJ558	0.94	1.30	1.21
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
SAA4	1.02	1.42	1.19
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Pigr	1.08	1.24	1.07
P值	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05
Protein	Sep8-vs-sham8	Sep32-vs-sham32	Sep72-vs-sham72
Masp1	0.98	1.23	1.04
P值	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

[1]	Jianbiao Meng, Geng Zhang, Yanna Jiao. Exploratory study on early intestinal microecological changes in patients with sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction [J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 16(04): 279-285.
[2]	Yu Chen, Fang Feng, Lu Zhang, Jian Liu. Bioinformatics analysis to screen key pathogenic genes in septic cardiomyopathy [J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 16(04): 286-291.
[3]	Yuanyuan Han, Sabeiti Reziya, Zhijie Mao, Aierken Mufunayi, Chen Lu, Xiaohong Sang, Mulati Aerman, Li Zhang. Effect of combined blood purification on serum inflammatory cytokines levels and clinical prognosis in patients with sepsis [J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 16(04): 272-278.
[4]	Xiaoqiao Mo, Zheying Hu, Donghua Liao, Tian Xie. Establishment and evaluation of a predictive model for death risk in patients with acute kidney injury secondary to sepsis [J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 16(03): 198-206.
[5]	Xiaoyan Zhang, Dongqiong Xiao, Hu Gao, Lin Chen, Fajuan Tang, Xihong Li. The protective effect and mechanism of overexpression of transcription factor 12 on the cerebral cortex of rats with sepsis-associated encephalopathy [J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 540-549.
[6]	Xu Wei, Ge Zhang, Jinlin Wu. Monitoring and treatment of neonatal sepsis-induced coagulopathy [J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(04): 379-386.
[7]	Xiaodan Wang, Yuan Wang, Xiangyu Cui, Xiaolei Ren. Analysis of pathogenic bacteria resistance of drug and high risk factors of death in urogenic sepsis after endoscopic surgery for upper urinary tract stones [J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 611-615.
[8]	Xuecheng Wu, Yuanwei Li, Wuxiong Yuan, Jiansong Wang, Yongzhong Shi, Qiang Lu, Zhuo Li, Jia Chen, Zhe Liu, Yili Teng, Zhiyong Gao. Diagnostic value of inflammatory mediators profile combined with procalcitonin in urogenic sepsis [J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(05): 476-480.
[9]	Shangwen Dou, Huan Deng, Bangfeng Liu, Gaoyuanzhi Yue, Huacai Zhu, Yongda Liu. Role of preoperative urine culture re-examination in the prediction of infectious complications related to mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy [J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 361-366.
[10]	Ruanxin Miao, Xi Qiao. Role of Toll-like receptor in sepsis-induced acute kidney injury [J]. Chinese Journal of Kidney Disease Investigation(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(04): 210-214.
[11]	Shiming Li, Wei Huang, Ling Liu. Mechanism of high mobility group box protein 1 mediated sepsis-induced coagulopathy and treatment progress [J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care & Intensive Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 09(03): 269-273.
[12]	Chao Gao, Jie Chao, Haibo Qiu. Emerging roles of transcription factor T-bet of Th17 in immune imbalance of sepsis [J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care & Intensive Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2023, 09(03): 280-285.
[13]	Rui Tan, Jing Wang, Jiangquan Yu, Ruiqiang Zheng. Progress in understanding of role of high density lipoprotein, apolipoprotein A-I, and serum amyloid A in sepsis [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 749-753.
[14]	Xing Cai, Ruiqiang Zheng. Progress in application of heparin-binding protein in sepsis [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 487-490.
[15]	Qiao Jiang, Zhenle Zhang, Yanling Zhang, Zhanpeng Yu. Construction and evaluation of risk prediction model of acute pancreatitis complicated with sepsis based on MIMIC-Ⅲ database [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Laboratory Management(Electronic Edition), 2023, 11(03): 151-157.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export