Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 9, 2025
Pharmacological and Functional Genetic Assays to Manipulate Regeneration of the Planarian Dugesia japonica
Published on: August 31, 2011
Comparative Proteome Analysis Indicates The Divergence between The Head and Tail Regeneration in Planarian
Xiaoguang Chen1, Yumei Liu1, Xuemin Zhu1
1Animal Science and Technology School, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Objective:
Even a small fragment from the body of planarian can regenerate an entire animal, implying that the different fragments from this flatworm eventually reach the same solution. In this study, our aim was to reveal the differences and similarities in mechanisms between different regenerating fragments from this worm.
Materials And Methods:
In this experimental study, we profiled the dynamic proteome of regenerating head and tail to reveal the differences and similarities between different regenerating fragments using 2-DE combined with MALDITOF/ TOF MS.
Results:
Proteomic profiles of head and tail regeneration identified a total of 516 differential expressed proteins (DEPs) and showed a great difference in quantity and fold changes of proteome profiles between the two scenarios. Briefly, out of the 516 DEPs, 314 were identified to be specific for anterior regeneration, while 165 were specific for posterior regeneration. Bioinformatics analysis showed a wide discrepancy in biological activities between two regenerative processes; especially, differentiation and development and signal transduction in head regeneration were much more complex than that in tail regeneration. Protein functional analysis combined with protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis showed a significant contribution of both Wnt and BMP signaling pathways to head regeneration not but tail regeneration. Additionally, several novel proteins showed completely opposite expression between head and tail regeneration.
Conclusion:
Proteomic profiles of head and tail regeneration identified a total of 516 differential expressed proteins (DEPs) and showed a great difference in quantity and fold changes of proteome profiles between the two scenarios. Briefly, out of the 516 DEPs, 314 were identified to be specific for anterior regeneration, while 165 were specific for posterior regeneration. Bioinformatics analysis showed a wide discrepancy in biological activities between two regenerative processes; especially, differentiation and development and signal transduction in head regeneration were much more complex than that in tail regeneration. Protein functional analysis combined with protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis showed a significant contribution of both Wnt and BMP signaling pathways to head regeneration not but tail regeneration. Additionally, several novel proteins showed completely opposite expression between head and tail regeneration.
