| Literature DB >> 22124703 |
Hu Song1, Jun-Sheng Peng, Yao Dong-Sheng, Zu-Li Yang, Huan-Liang Liu, Yi-Ke Zeng, Xian-Ping Shi, Bi-Yan Lu.
Abstract
Research on molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis plays an important role in diagnosing and treating gastric cancer. Metabolic profiling may offer the opportunity to understand the molecular mechanism of carcinogenesis and help to non-invasively identify the potential biomarkers for the early diagnosis of human gastric cancer. The aims of this study were to explore the underlying metabolic mechanisms of gastric cancer and to identify biomarkers associated with morbidity. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) was used to analyze the serum metabolites of 30 Chinese gastric cancer patients and 30 healthy controls. Diagnostic models for gastric cancer were constructed using orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). Acquired metabolomic data were analyzed by the nonparametric Wilcoxon test to find serum metabolic biomarkers for gastric cancer. The OPLS-DA model showed adequate discrimination between cancer and non-cancer cohorts while the model failed to discriminate different pathological stages (I-IV) of gastric cancer patients. A total of 44 endogenous metabolites such as amino acids, organic acids, carbohydrates, fatty acids, and steroids were detected, of which 18 differential metabolites were identified with significant differences. A total of 13 variables were obtained for their greatest contribution in the discriminating OPLS-DA model [variable importance in the projection (VIP) value >1.0], among which 11 metabolites were identified using both VIP values (VIP >1) and the Wilcoxon test. These metabolites potentially revealed perturbations of glycolysis and of amino acid, fatty acid, cholesterol, and nucleotide metabolism of gastric cancer patients. These results suggest that gastric cancer serum metabolic profiling has great potential in detecting this disease and helping to understand its metabolic mechanisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22124703 PMCID: PMC3854141 DOI: 10.1590/s0100-879x2011007500158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res ISSN: 0100-879X Impact factor: 2.590
Summary of the anatomical and clinicopathological characteristics of the gastric cancer patients and healthy controls studied.
| Gastric cancer patients | Healthy controls | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | 30 | 30 |
| Male/female | 15/15 | 15/15 |
| Age (median, range) | 63 (39-88) | 62 (42-82) |
| TNM stage I | 4 | - |
| TNM stage II | 5 | - |
| TNM stage III | 15 | - |
| TNM stage IV | 6 | - |
| Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma | 23 | - |
| Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | 5 | - |
| Well-differentiated adenocarcinoma | 2 | - |
TNM = tumor node metastasis.
Figure 1Typical gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) total ion current (TIC) chromatograms. A and B show that, within one TIC chromatogram, over 60 signals were usually detected in a single gastric cancer serum or normal control serum specimen. C shows a base peak at the retention time of 30.864 min that was extracted and magnified. D shows that the mass spectrogram at the peak summit was selected and compounds were identified via mass spectral match to the National Institute of Standards and Technology library. The m/z values of the first three highest abundance of fragmentation patterns were 43.1, 105.1, and 386.4.
Serum differential metabolites derived from gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis.
| Functional class | Retention time | m/z (No. 1) | m/z (No. 2) | m/z (No. 3) | Match percent | Compound | VIP value | Fold change | P value | Trend of gastric cancer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amino acid metabolism | ||||||||||
| 1 | 10.695 | 69 | 41.1 | 97.1 | 83 | dl-Ornithine | 0.7922 | 1.93 | ||
| 2 | 11.368 | 67 | 128 | 206 | 84 | D-Alanine | 0.032 | 1.03 | ||
| 3 | 11.439 | 191.2 | 57.1 | 229.1 | 85 | I-Proline | 0.1954 | 1.17 | ||
| 4 | 12.151 | 156.1 | 51 | 102.1 | 97 | I-Glutamine | 0.9197 | -1.77 | 0.032 | ↓ |
| 5 | 12.222 | 187.1 | 156.1 | 69 | 80 | I-Valine | 1.0919 | 2.63 | 0.031 | ↑ |
| 6 | 12.817 | 188.1 | 60.1 | 40 | 80 | I-Isoleucine | 0.5739 | -2.18 | ||
| 7 | 12.888 | 188.1 | 69 | 110.1 | 82 | Glycine | 0.5828 | -2.01 | ||
| 8 | 12.92 | 69 | 41.1 | 188.1 | 86 | I-Leucine | 0.1553 | 1.14 | ||
| 9 | 13.897 | 71.1 | 40 | 113.1 | 85 | Valeric acid | 0.1255 | 1.05 | ||
| 10 | 22.261 | 73.1 | 32 | 225.1 | 83 | Sarcosine | 0.9688 | 1.93 | 0.049 | ↑ |
| 11 | 24.913 | 91.1 | 44 | 207.1 | 8 | Glycyl-dl-alanine | 0.5387 | 1.67 | ||
| 12 | 24.234 | 57.1 | 98.1 | 207 | 80 | Hexanedioic acid | 1.3538 | -4.69 | 0.022 | ↓ |
| Fatty acid metabolism | ||||||||||
| 13 | 16.924 | 74.1 | 43.1 | 143.1 | 98 | Hexadecanoic acid | 0.0215 | 1.00 | ||
| 14 | 17.688 | 67.1 | 95.1 | 40 | 82 | 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid | 1.0384 | -1.68 | 0.043 | ↓ |
| 15 | 17.778 | 69.1 | 111.1 | 32.1 | 87 | cis-9-Hexadecenoic acid | 0.8822 | -1.47 | ||
| 16 | 18.141 | 43.1 | 110.1 | 222.3 | 84 | cis-13-Octadecenoic acid | 1.1333 | 1.27 | ||
| 17 | 19.518 | 67.1 | 96.1 | 40 | 96 | 10,13-Octadecadienoic acid | 0.9204 | -1.71 | ||
| 18 | 19.622 | 55.1 | 97.1 | 264.3 | 97 | 9-Octadecenoic acid | 1.2315 | -1.69 | 0.017 | ↓ |
| 19 | 20.016 | 74.1 | 43.1 | 143.1 | 97 | Heptadecanoic acid, 15-methyl ester | 0.113 | 1.02 | ||
| 20 | 20.256 | 55.1 | 83.1 | 111.1 | 99 | trans-13-Octadecenoic acid | 0.9642 | -1.82 | 0.011 | ↓ |
| 21 | 20.605 | 73.1 | 43.1 | 129.1 | 93 | Octadecanoic acid | 0.333 | 1.20 | ||
| 22 | 20.954 | 59.1 | 32 | 207 | 86 | Octadecanamide | 0.7332 | -1.33 | ||
| 23 | 23.775 | 59.1 | 32 | 95.1 | 85 | 9-Octadecenamide | 0.5218 | -1.46 | ||
| 24 | 24.118 | 59 | 32 | 207.1 | 83 | Tetradecanamide | 0.2383 | 1.45 | ||
| 25 | 25.541 | 55.1 | 97 | 276.3 | 80 | Nonahexacontanoic acid | 1.155 | -2.35 | 0.021 | ↓ |
| 26 | 25.631 | 136.1 | 97.1 | 247 | 89 | Docosanoic acid | 0.8334 | -2.04 | ||
| Cholesterol metabolism | ||||||||||
| 27 | 28.555 | 207 | 43.1 | 368.4 | 97 | Cholesta-3,5-diene | 2.0449 | -2.14 | 0 | ↓ |
| 28 | 29.331 | 368.4 | 43.1 | 207 | 89 | Cholesterol, pentafluoropropionate | 2.092 | -2.12 | 0 | ↓ |
| 29 | 30.864 | 43.1 | 105.1 | 386.4 | 99 | Cholesterol | 0.9811 | -1.87 | 0.046 | ↓ |
| 30 | 31.595 | 368.4 | 207 | 81.1 | 81 | Cholest-5-en-3-ol | 1.5286 | -2.68 | 0.001 | ↓ |
| Nucleotide synthesis | ||||||||||
| 31 | 10.52 | 69 | 40 | 136.1 | 85 | Adenine | 0.615 | 1.93 | ||
| Glycometabolism | ||||||||||
| 32 | 9.046 | 73.1 | 43.1 | 267 | 85 | Fumaric acid | 0.7632 | -1.87 | 0.03 | ↓ |
| 33 | 14.195 | 69 | 32 | 184.1 | 80 | 2-O-Mesyl arabinose | 0.7436 | -1.65 | 0.049 | ↓ |
| 34 | 15.255 | 43.1 | 110 | 194.2 | 85 | d-Glucopyranoside | 0.7927 | 1.16 | ||
| 35 | 17.235 | 69.1 | 41.1 | 98.1 | 83 | d-Fructopyranose | 0.6557 | -1.27 | ||
| 36 | 17.468 | 73.1 | 43.1 | 129.1 | 91 | l-(+)-Ascorbic acid | 0.6204 | 1.27 | ||
| Others | ||||||||||
| 37 | 15.592 | 80.1 | 129.1 | 39.1 | 88 | Barbituric acid | 0.5453 | 1.25 | ||
| 38 | 16.556 | 108 | 69 | 32.1 | 91 | Hexadecanenitrile | 0.7939 | 1.45 | 0.041 | ↑ |
| 39 | 19.227 | 69 | 40 | 113.1 | 81 | Adipic dihydroxamic acid monohydrate | 0.0687 | -1.04 | ||
| 40 | 19.706 | 73.1 | 40 | 281.1 | 84 | Heptadecanenitrile | 1.0089 | 1.91 | ||
| 41 | 25.321 | 55.1 | 97.1 | 136.1 | 83 | Oleanitrile | 0.5013 | 1.17 | ||
| 42 | 27.488 | 207.1 | 43.1 | 145.1 | 80 | Benzeneacetonitrile, | 2.0218 | -2.03 | 0 | ↓ |
| 43 | 28.264 | 207 | 43.1 | 281 | 83 | 2-Amino-4-hydroxy-pteridinone | 1.7826 | -2.31 | 0.001 | ↓ |
| 44 | 29.545 | 207.1 | 43.1 | 281.1 | 80 | 1,2,4-Benzenetricarboxylic acid | 1.9467 | -2.72 | 0 | ↓ |
The first three fragment-ion m/z values with the highest abundance within each fragmentation pattern are listed.
The matching percentage to the NIST library is listed.
Metabolites are identified using available standard reference or NIST library databases.
Variable importance in the projection (VIP) was obtained by orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) with a threshold of 1.0.
P value and fold change were calculated using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test (significance at P < 0.05). Fold change with a positive value indicates a relatively higher concentration present in gastric cancer serum, while a negative value means a relatively lower concentration as compared to the normal control.
Figure 2Establishment of orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) models. A shows the score plot of OPLS-DA modeling for serum metabolomic data. It can be seen that healthy controls tended to cluster to the left, while the gastric cancer patients generally clustered to the right. The OPLS-DA model demonstrated satisfactory modeling and achieved a fairly distinct separation between the two groups. B illustrates the score plot of normal control and different TNM stages and the model could not separate gastric cancer patients in different TNM stages although separation trends could be observed between the gastric cancer group and non-gastric cancer group.