| Literature DB >> 19845817 |
Gareth Catchpole1, Alexander Platzer, Cornelia Weikert, Carsten Kempkensteffen, Manfred Johannsen, Hans Krause, Klaus Jung, Kurt Miller, Lothar Willmitzer, Joachim Selbig, Steffen Weikert.
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that metabolic changes play a pivotal role in the biology of cancer and in particular renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Here, a global metabolite profiling approach was applied to characterize the metabolite pool of RCC and normal renal tissue. Advanced decision tree models were applied to characterize the metabolic signature of RCC and to explore features of metastasized tumours. The findings were validated in a second independent dataset. Vitamin E derivates and metabolites of glucose, fatty acid, and inositol phosphate metabolism determined the metabolic profile of RCC. α-tocopherol, hippuric acid, myoinositol, fructose-1-phosphate and glucose-1-phosphate contributed most to the tumour/normal discrimination and all showed pronounced concentration changes in RCC. The identified metabolic profile was characterized by a low recognition error of only 5% for tumour versus normal samples. Data on metastasized tumours suggested a key role for metabolic pathways involving arachidonic acid, free fatty acids, proline, uracil and the tricarboxylic acid cycle. These results illustrate the potential of mass spectroscopy based metabolomics in conjunction with sophisticated data analysis methods to uncover the metabolic phenotype of cancer. Differentially regulated metabolites, such as vitamin E compounds, hippuric acid and myoinositol, provide leads for the characterization of novel pathways in RCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 19845817 PMCID: PMC3822498 DOI: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009.00939.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Performance of the decision tree models for the discrimination between normal and RCC tumour samples
| Method | 50% | crossfold10 | 50% | crossfold10 | 50% | crossfold10 | 50% | crossfold10 | ||||||||||||||||
| Random Forest | 86% | 94% | 74% | 71% | 91% | 91% | 50% | 78% | ||||||||||||||||
| Random Tree | 52% | 71% | 82% | 65% | 71% | 70% | 56% | 66% | ||||||||||||||||
| ADTree | 95% | 95% | 68% | 75% | 89% | 92% | 47% | 73% | ||||||||||||||||
| SMO | 92% | 97% | 85% | 88% | 95% | 92% | 59% | 81% | ||||||||||||||||
| Simple Logistic | 95% | 95% | 91% | 84% | 94% | 85% | 56% | 85% | ||||||||||||||||
| lower border | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| most frequent class/total | 66/132 | 40/68 | 65/130 | 39/67 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| float of lower border | 50% | 59% | 50% | 58% | ||||||||||||||||||||
The correct classification returned by each of the five different classification methods used (random forest, random tree, ADTree, SMO and simple logistic) upon treating the two-class problem (tumour yes/no) is shown as percentage. Results are shown having divided the dataset into 50% training and 50% testing sub-groups and having used 10-fold cross-validation.
*The lower border is the percentage of the total sample number represented by the most numerous class. This percentage correct classification could therefore be achieved simply by always classifying unknown samples as belonging to this class. Therefore the success rate of the models should exceed the lower border in order to be considered better than this overly simplistic selection method.
Fig 1Decision Tree Model (ADTree) generated for the two-class problem of discriminating RCC and normal renal tissue samples (A), and localized RCC and metastatic disease (B). Key metabolites are shown with the corresponding normalized relative peak intensity cut-offs. Each metabolite resembles a decision node that is linked to two prediction nodes with the corresponding prediction values. Classification of a hypothetical sample would be based on the sum of final attained prediction node values that are determined by applying the peak intensity cut-offs for all metabolites of the decision tree on the sample-specific data record. Any result> 0 means a class prediction of 0 (A: normal tissue; B: localized tumour), any result < 0 a class prediction of 1 (A: RCC, B: metastatic tumour). The model was trained with the first dataset and used all metabolites irrespective of identified status.
Fig 2The information gain for the two class discrimination between RCC and normal tissue by key metabolites. Metabolites with the highest gain contribute most to the correct discrimination. The theoretical maximum gain = 1. The black bars indicate metabolites that were not detectable in all samples and were therefore unable to be incorporated into the ADTree model, but all of these metabolites were detected in over 90% of samples, except for 6-phosphogluconic acid (88%).
Metabolites displaying relative concentration differences in RCC and control renal tissue samples
| α-tocopherol | 5.2 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | Vitamin E metabolism |
| α-tocopherol acetate | 4.0 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | |
| β-tocopherol | 3.1 | <0.0007 | 0.004 | <0.0007 | |
| Arachidonic acid | –2.6 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | Arachidonic acid metabolism (involved in VEGF signalling pathway and angiogenesis) |
| Palmitate | –1.5 | <0.0007 | 0.02 | <0.0007 | Fatty acid metabolism |
| Tridecanoic acid | –1.4 | <0.0007 | n.s. | 0.0032 | |
| Glycerol | –2.2 | <0.0007 | 0.0008 | <0.0007 | Glycerolipid metabolism |
| Citric acid | 1.6 | 0.001 | n.s. | <0.0007 | TCA cycle |
| Fumaric acid | –1.9 | 0.01 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | |
| Succinic acid | –3.4 | <0.0007 | 0.003 | <0.0007 | |
| Malic acid | –1.7 | <0.0007 | 0.01 | <0.0007 | |
| Glucose | 5.0 | <0.0007 | n.s. | 0.0008 | Glycolysis, Pentose phosphate pathway |
| Glucose (minor peak) | 4.8 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | |
| Glucose-1-phosphate | 3.0 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | Glycolysis, Pentose phosphate pathway, Nucleotide sugars metabolism, |
| 6-phosphogluconic acid | 6.3 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | Glycolysis, Pentose phosphate pathway, byproduct of tyrosine kinase acticity |
| Fructose | 2.0 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | Fructose and mannose metabolism |
| Fructose-1-phosphate | 8.3 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | |
| myo-Inositol | –1.5 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | Phosphatidylinositol signalling system, Inositol phosphate metabolism |
| Saccharic acid | –2.6 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | Ascorbate and aldarate metabolism (linked to glycolysis) |
| N-Acetyl-D-glucosamine | –1.7 | 0.034 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | Glutamate metabolism, Aminosugars metabolism |
| β-alanine | 2.5 | <0.0007 | n.s. | <0.0007 | Pyrimidine metabolism |
| Uracil | –2.0 | <0.0007 | 0.004 | <0.0007 | |
| Uracil (second peak) | –3.7 | <0.0007 | 0.002 | <0.0007 | |
| Hippuric acid | –35.2 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | <0.0007 | Phenylalanine metabolism |
| Oxoproline | 1.4 | <0.0007 | n.s. | 0.0037 | Gluthathion metabolism (radical detoxification) |
Negative fold change indicates decreased relative concentration in RCC versus normal tissue. **A P-value of <0.0007 indicates a significant difference upon Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.
Fig 3Descriptive statistics of relative metabolite concentrations in tumour versus normal tissue. Select key metabolites are chosen based on their high informational gain for the tumour/normal discrimination and/or their identification in the decision tree analysis. Boxplots show median, 25th and 75th percentiles, range, and extreme values. For better illustration a logarithmic scale was chosen for the relative concentration; absolute concentrations cannot be calculated and therefore no precise scale is given.
Metabolites with relative concentration differences in localized and metastasized RCC samples
| Uracil | 1.9 | <0.0007 | Pyrimidine metabolism |
| Arachidonic acid | 1.9 | 0.007 | Arachidonic acid metabolism (involved in VEGF signalling pathway and angiogenesis) |
| Erythritol | 1.7 | 0.002 | Glycerolipid metabolism |
| 3-Phospho-glycerate | 1.9 | 0.005 | |
| Heptadecanoic acid | 1.5 | 0.001 | Fatty acid metabolism |
| Hexadecanoic acid | 1.3 | 0.008 | |
| Tetradecanoic acid | 1.4 | 0.01 | |
| Isoleucine | 2.9 | 0.008 | Valine, leucine and isoleucine meatbolism |
| Phenylalanine | 2.4 | 0.003 | Phenylalanine metabolism |
| Proline | 2.5 | 0.006 | Arginine and Proline metabolism |
A P-value of <0.0007 indicates a significant difference upon Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.