Table 7.

Summary: overall results of group proteomic analyses

Table	Analyses	Findings
Table 6	Various LV vs. RV	30 proteins exhibited differential expression
Table 3	Pooled all LVs (n = 12) vs. all RVs (n = 12)	11 proteins were differentially expressed; expression changes were on the whole modest; no proteins were uniquely expressed in either LVs or RVs; PCA did not discriminate between LV and RV proteomes
Table S1	Ischemic LVs (n = 6) vs. ischemic RVs (n = 6)	4 proteins were differentially expressed; expression changes were similar to pooled all LV vs. RV changes
Table S2	Nonischemic LVs (n = 6) vs. nonischemic RVs (n = 6)	9 proteins were differentially expressed; these changes suggested a more “metabolic” and “survival” signature and revealed new additional proteins differentially expressed
Table S3	LV (n = 4) vs. paired RV with echocardiographic normal function (n = 4)	14 proteins were differentially expressed; expression changes were more “metabolic/cytoskeletal” in nature than overall changes
Table S4	LV (n = 8) vs. paired RV with echocardiographic dysfunction (n = 8)	9 proteins were differentially expressed; expression changes were similar to pooled all LV vs. RV changes
Table 4	Ischemic RV (n = 6) vs. nonischemic RV (n = 6)	7 proteins were differentially expressed; PCA did discriminate between ischemic and nonischemic RV proteomes
Table 4	RV with echocardiographic normal function (n = 4) vs. RV with echocardiographic dysfunction (n = 8)	No differentially expressed proteins identified

^NoteLV: left ventricle; PCA: principal-components analysis; RV: right ventricle.