While our data on linking MAG, SPNA2 and NEFL expression to grip strength are preliminary, epidemiological data suggest significant correlations of TBI to the development of CNS pathologies with long-term motor dysfunction, including; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and chronic traumatic encephalopathy

[[10], [11], [12] and [13]]. For example, TBI has been linked to a ˜3-fold increased risk of ALS [13,59], and the genes and environmental exposures in veterans with ALS (GENEVA) case-control study revealed see more significantly increased risk of ALS in veterans with a TBI [12]. Lastly, we briefly discuss two of the proteins shown in Table 1 that did not exhibit statistically significant correlations to post-injury time and/or grip strength: GSTM5 and GPI. GSTM5 is a member of the glutathione s-transferase superfamily: a major group of detoxification enzymes that alleviates the damage from lipid peroxidation by-products (e.g., 4-HNE and acrolein) by catalyzing their conjugation with glutathione [60,61]. Our results indicate increased lipid peroxidation during mTBI, which could be exacerbated by decreased levels of GSTM5 [62]. GPI is a dimeric enzyme that catalyzes the reversible isomerization of glucose-6-phosphate and fructose-6-phosphate. In the cytoplasm, VE-821 GPI

is involved in glycolysis and gluconeogenesis, while outside the cell it functions as a neurotrophic factor for spinal and sensory neurons. Interestingly, we also observed that GPI levels were decreased in mTBI vs. sham. In contrast, we observed increased levels of GPI in our previous work on a mouse model of multiple sclerosis [22]. M2 proteomics was developed

to provide the following advantages: to improve sample throughput by decreasing lengthy sample preparation times, to improve sensitivity by decreasing adsorptive losses, and to improve statistical power by enabling quantitative MS/MS-based proteomic studies with relatively large numbers of specimens. One disadvantage is the greater computational burden that comes with larger numbers of specimens and MS/MS spectra. A rigorous comparison of the analytical figures Meloxicam of merit for M2 proteomics vs. other proteomics methods is beyond the scope of this work, including: M2 proteomics vs. conventional approaches for quantitative MS/MS-based proteomics, bead-based immunoassays, and gel-based proteomic methods such as two-dimensional electrophoresis. However, since our initial publications on M2 proteomics [22,23], we have successfully applied M2 proteomics to a variety of preclinical and clinical studies. Moreover, there is a growing number of reports of high-throughput sample preparation by microwave-assisted digestion [63,64] or by magnetic beads [65], high-sensitivity on-bead digestions [66], and isobaric labeling reagents for multiplexed protein quantification by MS/MS-based proteomics [67,68].