| Literature DB >> 21577256 |
D Ben Sellem1, K Elbayed, A Neuville, F-M Moussallieh, G Lang-Averous, M Piotto, J-P Bellocq, I J Namer.
Abstract
Objectives. The objectives of the present study are to determine if a metabolomic study by HRMAS-NMR can (i) discriminate between different histological types of epithelial ovarian carcinomas and healthy ovarian tissue, (ii) generate statistical models capable of classifying borderline tumors and (iii) establish a potential relationship with patient's survival or response to chemotherapy. Methods. 36 human epithelial ovarian tumor biopsies and 3 healthy ovarian tissues were studied using (1)H HRMAS NMR spectroscopy and multivariate statistical analysis. Results. The results presented in this study demonstrate that the three histological types of epithelial ovarian carcinomas present an effective metabolic pattern difference. Furthermore, a metabolic signature specific of serous (N-acetyl-aspartate) and mucinous (N-acetyl-lysine) carcinomas was found. The statistical models generated in this study are able to predict borderline tumors characterized by an intermediate metabolic pattern similar to the normal ovarian tissue. Finally and importantly, the statistical model of serous carcinomas provided good predictions of both patient's survival rates and the patient's response to chemotherapy. Conclusions. Despite the small number of samples used in this study, the results indicate that metabolomic analysis of intact tissues by HRMAS-NMR is a promising technique which might be applicable to the therapeutic management of patients.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21577256 PMCID: PMC3090613 DOI: 10.1155/2011/174019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
1H resonance assignments of the metabolites present in cancerous and healthy human ovarian tissues.
| † | Metabolites | Group | 1H chemical shift (ppm) | 13C chemical shift |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Isoleucine |
| 0.94 | 13.90 |
|
| 1.01 | 17.29 | ||
|
| 1.51 | 27.30 | ||
|
| 3.65 | 62.34 | ||
|
| ||||
| 2 | Leucine |
| 0.96 | 23.50 |
|
| 0.90 | 25.10 | ||
|
| 1.71 | — | ||
|
| 1.71 | 42.51 | ||
|
| 3.74 | 56.05 | ||
|
| ||||
| 3 | Valine |
| 0.99 | 19.26 |
|
| 1.05 | 20.70 | ||
|
| 2.31 | 31.99 | ||
|
| ||||
| 4 | Ethanol | CH3 | 1.18 | 19.55 |
| CH2OH | 3.66 | 60.11 | ||
|
| ||||
| 5 | Fatty acids (a) | (2)CH2 | 1.29 | 34.50 |
| (1)CH2 | 1.30 | 25.47 | ||
|
| ||||
| 6 | Fatty acids (b) | (2)CH2 | 2.02 | 27.22 |
| CH2 | 2.81 | 28.14 | ||
| (1)CH | 5.32 | 130.55 | ||
| (2)CH | 5.33 | 132.36 | ||
|
| ||||
| 7 | Fatty acids (a) (b) | ( | 1.29 | 32.36 |
|
| ||||
| 8 | Fatty acids (c) | (2)CH2 | 1.56 | 27.20 |
|
| ||||
| 9 | Lactate | CH2 | 1.33 | 22.70 |
| CH | 4.12 | 71.17 | ||
|
| ||||
| 10 | Lysine |
| 1.44 | 24.66 |
|
| 1.71 | 29.16 | ||
|
| 1.91 | 32.61 | ||
|
| 3.01 | 41.92 | ||
|
| ||||
| 11 | Alanine |
| 1.48 | 18.89 |
|
| 3.78 | 53.27 | ||
|
| ||||
| 12 | Glutamate |
| 2.07 | 29.77 |
|
| 2.35 | 36.00 | ||
|
| 3.77 | 57.15 | ||
|
| ||||
| 13 | Methionine |
| 2.11 | 16.77 |
|
| ||||
| 14 | Glutamine |
| 2.14 | — |
|
| 2.45 | 33.51 | ||
|
| 3.77 | — | ||
|
| ||||
| 15 | Aspartic acid |
| 2.70 | 39.17 |
|
| 2.80 | 39.17 | ||
|
| 3.90 | 54.93 | ||
|
| ||||
| 16 | Choline | −N+-(CH3)3 | 3.21 | — |
|
| 3.52 | 69.96 | ||
|
| 4.07 | 58.36 | ||
|
| ||||
| 17 | Phosphorylcholine | −N+-(CH3)3 | 3.23 | 56.58 |
|
| 3.62 | 68.89 | ||
|
| 4.19 | 60.92 | ||
|
| ||||
| 18 | Glycerophosphocholine | −CH2-NH2 + | 3.24 | — |
|
| 4.33 | 62.03 | ||
|
| 3.69 | 68.62 | ||
| CH2-HPO2 (d) | 3.88 | 69.37 | ||
| CH2OH | 3.93 | 73.43 | ||
| CH2-HPO2 (u) | 3.95 | 69.37 | ||
|
| ||||
| 19 | Arginine |
| 1.72 | 26.67 |
|
| 1.92 | 30.26 | ||
|
| 3.23 | 43.27 | ||
|
| ||||
| 20 | Taurine | −CH2-NH2 + | 3.26 | 50.22 |
| −CH2-SO3 − | 3.42 | 38.17 | ||
|
| ||||
| 21 | Proline |
| 3.33 | 48.78 |
|
| 3.41 | 48.78 | ||
|
| 4.10 | 64.39 | ||
|
| ||||
| 22 | scyllo-Inositol | all Hs | 3.34 | 76.37 |
|
| ||||
| 23 | myo-Inositol | C5H | 3.27 | 77.11 |
| C1H, C3H | 3.53 | 73.84 | ||
| C4H, C6H | 3.61 | 75.06 | ||
| C2H | 4.06 | 74.93 | ||
|
| ||||
| 24 | Glycine |
| 3.56 | 44.17 |
|
| ||||
| 25 | Threonine |
| 3.59 | 63.23 |
|
| 4.26 | 68.81 | ||
|
| ||||
| 26 | Glycerol | 1,3 CH2OH(u) | 3.58 | 65.06 |
| 1,3 CH2OH(d) | 3.65 | 65.06 | ||
| −CH(OH)- | 3.78 | 74.85 | ||
|
| ||||
| 27 |
| C4H | 3.41 | 72.44 |
| C3H, C5H | 3.47 | 78.60 | ||
| C6H(u) | 3.73 | 63.50 | ||
| C6H(d) | 3.90 | 63.50 | ||
| C1H | 4.65 | — | ||
|
| ||||
| 28 |
| C1H | 5.23 | — |
|
| ||||
| 29 | Serine |
| 3.84 | 59.12 |
|
| 3.99 | 63.09 | ||
|
| ||||
| 30 | Creatine | CH3 | 3.03 | 39.66 |
| CH2 | 3.94 | 56.44 | ||
|
| ||||
| 31 | Asparagine |
| 4.00 | 54.15 |
|
| ||||
| 32 | Ascorbic acid | CH2OH | 4.02 | 72.12 |
| C4H | 4.52 | 80.96 | ||
|
| ||||
| 33 | Succinic acid | ( | 2.41 | — |
|
| ||||
| 34 | Glutathione | CH2-CONH | 2.55 | 33.98 |
| CH2-SH | 2.96 | 28.40 | ||
| CH-NH2 | 3.78 | 46.07 | ||
| CH-NH | 4.58 | 58.40 | ||
|
| ||||
| 35 | Acetate | CH2 | 1.93 | 26.00 |
|
| ||||
| 36 | 3-hydroxybutyrate | CH2 | 1.20 | 24.29 |
|
| 2.29 | 49.11 | ||
|
| 2.39 | 49.11 | ||
| CHOH | 4.15 | — | ||
|
| ||||
| 37 | N Acetyl -Lysine |
| 1.69 | — |
|
| 1.80 | — | ||
| CH2 | 2.04 | 24.80 | ||
|
| 3.00 | — | ||
|
| 4.15 | — | ||
|
| ||||
| 38 | N Acetyl Aspartate | CH2 | 2.02 | 24.65 |
|
| 4.39 | 55.97 | ||
Figure 1Representative 1D 1H CPMG HRMAS spectra of healthy ovarian tissues (a) and endometrial (b), mucinous (c) and serous (d) carcinomas. Partial metabolite assignment in the 4.7–0.5 ppm region is indicated. The numbers refer to the metabolites listed in Table 1. The metabolic content of healthy and cancerous biopsies can be directly compared, since the intensity of each spectrum was normalized with respect to the amplitude of the digital Eretic signal and the weight of biopsy present in each sample.
Figure 2Score plot of the first two principal components (PC1, PC2) from PLS-DA model obtained when comparing: (a) Healthy ovarian tissues (filled triangle) versus the 3 epithelial carcinomas: mucinous (open diamond), endometrioid (open square) and serous (open triangle). Model parameters: R 2 Y = 0.75, Q 2 = 0.50. (b) Healthy ovarian tissues (full triangle) versus endometrioid carcinomas (open square). Model parameters: R 2 Y = 0.96, Q 2 = 0.45. (c) Healthy ovarian tissues (full triangle) versus mucinous carcinomas (open diamond). Model parameters: R 2 Y = 0.94, Q 2 = 0.69. (d) Healthy ovarian tissues (full triangle) versus high Silverberg score (grade III) of serous carcinomas (open triangle). Model parameters: R 2 Y = 0.91, Q 2 = 0.68. In these models, the predicted borderline cases are represented by filled circles (c, d) and the predicted low Silverberg score (grade I-II) serous carcinomas by open circles (d).
Figure 3Score plot of the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) from PLS-DA models obtained when correlating the metabolic data with: (a) Patient 24 months survival rate (superior to 24 months as open triangle inferior to 24 months as full triangle). Model parameters: R 2 Y = 0.85, Q 2 = 0.51. (b) Response to chemotherapy (positive response as open triangle negative response as full triangle). Model parameters: R 2 Y = 0.85, Q 2 = 0.42.