PURPOSE: A key barrier to identifying tissue biomarkers of clear cell renal cell carcinoma is the heterogeneity of protein expression in tissue. However, by providing spectra for every 0.05 mm(2) area of tissue, imaging mass spectrometry reveals the spatial distribution of peptides. We determined whether this approach could be used to identify and map protein signatures of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed 2 tissue microarrays with 2 cores each of matched tumor and normal tissue from the nephrectomy specimens of 70 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Samples were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. In each tissue microarray peptide signatures were identified that differentiated cancer from normal tissue. The signatures were then cross validated. Mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry sequencing was performed to determine the identity of select, differentially expressed peptides. Immunohistochemistry was used for validation. RESULTS: In each tissue microarray peptide signatures were identified that had 94.7% to 98.5% classification accuracy for each 0.05 mm(2) spot (spectrum) and 96.9% to 100% accuracy for each tissue core. Cross validation across tissue microarrays revealed a classification accuracy of 82.6% to 84.7% for each spot and 88.9% to 92.4% for each core. We identified vimentin, histone 2A.X and α-enolase as proteins with greater expression in cancer tissue. This was validated by immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging mass spectrometry identified and mapped specific peptides that accurately distinguished malignant from normal renal tissue. This demonstrates its potential as a novel, high throughput approach to clear cell renal cell carcinoma biomarker discovery. Given the multiple pathways and known heterogeneity involved in tumors such as clear cell renal cell carcinoma, multiple peptide signatures that maintain their spatial relationships may outperform traditional protein biomarkers.
PURPOSE: A key barrier to identifying tissue biomarkers of clear cell renal cell carcinoma is the heterogeneity of protein expression in tissue. However, by providing spectra for every 0.05 mm(2) area of tissue, imaging mass spectrometry reveals the spatial distribution of peptides. We determined whether this approach could be used to identify and map protein signatures of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed 2 tissue microarrays with 2 cores each of matched tumor and normal tissue from the nephrectomy specimens of 70 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Samples were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. In each tissue microarray peptide signatures were identified that differentiated cancer from normal tissue. The signatures were then cross validated. Mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry sequencing was performed to determine the identity of select, differentially expressed peptides. Immunohistochemistry was used for validation. RESULTS: In each tissue microarray peptide signatures were identified that had 94.7% to 98.5% classification accuracy for each 0.05 mm(2) spot (spectrum) and 96.9% to 100% accuracy for each tissue core. Cross validation across tissue microarrays revealed a classification accuracy of 82.6% to 84.7% for each spot and 88.9% to 92.4% for each core. We identified vimentin, histone 2A.X and α-enolase as proteins with greater expression in cancer tissue. This was validated by immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging mass spectrometry identified and mapped specific peptides that accurately distinguished malignant from normal renal tissue. This demonstrates its potential as a novel, high throughput approach to clear cell renal cell carcinoma biomarker discovery. Given the multiple pathways and known heterogeneity involved in tumors such as clear cell renal cell carcinoma, multiple peptide signatures that maintain their spatial relationships may outperform traditional protein biomarkers.
Authors: Erika R Amstalden van Hove; Tiffany R Blackwell; Ivo Klinkert; Gert B Eijkel; Ron M A Heeren; Kristine Glunde Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Julie Le Faouder; Samira Laouirem; Manuel Chapelle; Miguel Albuquerque; Jacques Belghiti; Françoise Degos; Valérie Paradis; Jean-Michel Camadro; Pierre Bedossa Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Matvey Tsivian; Vladimir Mouraviev; David M Albala; Jorge R Caso; Cary N Robertson; John F Madden; Thomas J Polascik Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michael J Leveridge; Antonio Finelli; John R Kachura; Andrew Evans; Hannah Chung; Daniel A Shiff; Kimberly Fernandes; Michael A S Jewett Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Richard D Unwin; Rachel A Craven; Patricia Harnden; Sarah Hanrahan; Nick Totty; Margaret Knowles; Ian Eardley; Peter J Selby; Rosamonde E Banks Journal: Proteomics Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Kiyoshi Yanagisawa; Yu Shyr; Baogang J Xu; Pierre P Massion; Paul H Larsen; Bill C White; John R Roberts; Mary Edgerton; Adriana Gonzalez; Sorena Nadaf; Jason H Moore; Richard M Caprioli; David P Carbone Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-08-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rossitza Lazova; Zhe Yang; Constantin El Habr; Young Lim; Keith Adam Choate; Erin H Seeley; Richard M Caprioli; Li Yangqun Journal: Am J Dermatopathol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 1.533
Authors: Nicole M White-Al Habeeb; Ashley Di Meo; Andreas Scorilas; Fabio Rotondo; Olena Masui; Annetta Seivwright; Manal Gabril; Andrew H A Girgis; Michael A Jewett; George M Yousef Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: R Mirnezami; K Spagou; P A Vorkas; M R Lewis; J Kinross; E Want; H Shion; R D Goldin; A Darzi; Z Takats; E Holmes; O Cloarec; J K Nicholson Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Erin H Seeley; Kevin J Wilson; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rachelle W Johnson; John C Gore; Richard M Caprioli; Lynn M Matrisian; Julie A Sterling Journal: Bone Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Clint M Alfaro; Alan K Jarmusch; Valentina Pirro; Kevin S Kerian; Timothy A Masterson; Liang Cheng; R Graham Cooks Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Elizabeth Ellen Jones; Thomas W Powers; Benjamin A Neely; Lisa H Cazares; Dean A Troyer; Alexander S Parker; Richard R Drake Journal: Proteomics Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 3.984