| Literature DB >> 24416269 |
Nichola C Garbett1, Michael L Merchant2, C William Helm3, Alfred B Jenson1, Jon B Klein4, Jonathan B Chaires1.
Abstract
Improved methods for the accurate identification of both the presence and severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and extent of spread of invasive carcinomas of the cervix (IC) are needed. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) has recently been shown to detect specific changes in the thermal behavior of blood plasma proteins in several diseases. This methodology is being explored to provide a complementary approach for screening of cervical disease. The present study evaluated the utility of DSC in differentiating between healthy controls, increasing severity of CIN and early and advanced IC. Significant discrimination was apparent relative to the extent of disease with no clear effect of demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, smoking status and parity. Of most clinical relevance, there was strong differentiation of CIN from healthy controls and IC, and amongst patients with IC between FIGO Stage I and advanced cancer. The observed disease-specific changes in DSC profiles (thermograms) were hypothesized to reflect differential expression of disease biomarkers that subsequently bound to and affected the thermal behavior of the most abundant plasma proteins. The effect of interacting biomarkers can be inferred from the modulation of thermograms but cannot be directly identified by DSC. To investigate the nature of the proposed interactions, mass spectrometry (MS) analyses were employed. Quantitative assessment of the low molecular weight protein fragments of plasma and urine samples revealed a small list of peptides whose abundance was correlated with the extent of cervical disease, with the most striking plasma peptidome data supporting the interactome theory of peptide portioning to abundant plasma proteins. The combined DSC and MS approach in this study was successful in identifying unique biomarker signatures for cervical cancer and demonstrated the utility of DSC plasma profiles as a complementary diagnostic tool to evaluate cervical cancer health.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24416269 PMCID: PMC3885574 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Thermogram profiles associated with progressive cervical disease.
Mean thermogram profiles of excess specific heat capacity (Cp ex) versus temperature (Panel A) and standard deviation (Panel B) of each clinical group: controls (black); LSIL (red); HSIL (green); early stage IC [FIGO Stage I] (blue); and advanced IC [FIGO Stage II-IV] (cyan). Thermograms show a progressive shift towards higher denaturation temperatures with increasing disease burden. Difference plots of clinical group thermograms compared to the control group (Panel C) show negative difference peaks ∼62°C and increasing shift and magnitude of higher temperature positive difference peaks. These are hypothesized to reflect the interaction of disease specific components with abundant plasma proteins, principally albumin, with resultant thermal stabilization and alteration of plasma thermogram profiles.
Thermogram shape and feature parameters for each clinical group.
| Parameter | Control [Median (LQ,UQ)] | LSIL | HSIL | Stage I [Median (LQ,UQ)] | Stage II-IV [Median (LQ,UQ)] |
| Area (cal/g) | 4.89 (4.75,5.05) | 4.59 (4.52,4.65) | 4.33 (3.90,4.83) | 4.46 (3.83,4.71) | 4.52 (4.25,4.78) |
| Width (°C) | 5.5 (5.2,5.7) | 13.1 (5.5,13.4) | 11.7 (10.6,12.7) | 13.1 (10.6,13.9) | 14.3 (11.9,14.9) |
| Height (cal/°C.g) | 0.50 (0.48,0.51) | 0.34 (0.32,0.45) | 0.36 (0.32,0.40) | 0.32 (0.29,0.36) | 0.31 (0.28,0.37) |
| Tmax
| 62.2 (61.9,62.2) | 64.3 (63.8,64.7) | 63.8 (63.3,64.5) | 64.3 (63.6,64.8) | 64.1 (62.5,70.3) |
| TFM
| 66.4 (66.0,66.5) | 68.3 (67.4,69.0) | 68.0 (67.3,68.3) | 68.1 (67.8,68.5) | 68.4 (67.9,68.7) |
| Cp
ex (Peak 1) | 0.50 (0.48,0.51) | 0.34 (0.32,0.45) | 0.36 (0.32,0.40) | 0.32 (0.27,0.36) | 0.30 (0.26,0.37) |
| Cp
ex (Peak 2) | 0.23 (0.22,0.23) | 0.27 (0.21,0.27) | 0.25 (0.23,0.26) | 0.25 (0.23,0.28) | 0.27 (0.25,0.30) |
| Cp
ex (Peak 1)/Cp
ex (Peak 2) | 2.19 (2.10,2.33) | 1.26 (1.21,2.12) | 1.40 (1.28,1.61) | 1.21 (1.08,1.46) | 1.06 (0.95,1.33) |
a Tmax, temperature of the peak maximum;
b TFM, first moment temperature;
c Cp ex (Peak 1), excess specific heat capacity of the main transition;
d Cp ex (Peak 2), excess specific heat capacity of the second transition;
e Cp ex (Peak 1)/Cp ex (Peak 2), ratio of the excess specific heat capacities of the main and second transitions;
f LSIL, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL);
g HSIL, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL);
h median value, lower quartile and upper quartile.
Figure 2Box charts showing thermogram shape and feature parameters for each clinical group.
Trends in thermogram parameters are observed with increasing disease burden from healthy controls (black); LSIL (red); HSIL (green); early stage IC [FIGO Stage I] (blue); and advanced IC [FIGO Stage II-IV] (cyan). Increased width with concomitant decreased height reflects the change in profile shape with disease progression seen in Figure 1A. TFM, the first moment temperature corresponding to the geometric center of the thermogram, provided a measure of this shape redistribution. TFM proved superior to Tmax, the temperature of the peak maximum, as a discriminatory metric for advanced IC where large distribution of Tmax values was correlated with significant variability in the heights of the major profile peaks. Profile width and the ratio of the major transition amplitudes, Cp ex (Peak 1) and Cp ex (Peak 2), provided the best metrics for discrimination of clinical status. Summary of statistical analyses of these parameters is shown by Tables 1 and 2. In each box chart the median value is indicated by the horizontal line within the box while the 25th and 75th percentiles are indicated by the lower and upper box edge, respectively. The mean value is indicated by the square within the box. The upper and lower “whiskers” define the 95th and 5th percentiles, respectively. The 99th and 1st percentiles are shown by the crossed symbols and the horizontal lines denoted the minimum and maximum of the data set.
Statistical comparison of differences in thermogram parameters between clinical groups.
| Parameter | Ctrl vs. LSIL | Ctrl vs. HSIL | Ctrl vs. Stg I | Ctrl vs. Stg II-IV | LSIL vs. HSIL | LSIL vs. Stg I | LSIL vs. Stg II-IV | HSIL vs. Stg I | HSIL vs. Stg II-IV | Stg I vs. Stg II-IV |
| Area (cal/g) |
|
|
|
| 0.3972 | 0.2204 | 0.4735 | 0.7021 | 0.2901 | 0.2237 |
| Width (°C) |
|
|
|
| 0.4199 | 0.3661 |
|
|
|
|
| Height (cal/°C.g) |
|
|
|
| 0.9552 | 0.2967 |
|
|
| 0.6444 |
| Tmax
|
|
|
|
| 0.3271 | 0.9820 | 0.9502 |
| 0.3315 | 0.9617 |
| TFM
|
|
|
|
| 0.2921 | 0.8430 | 0.7496 |
|
| 0.2942 |
| Cp
ex (Peak 1) |
|
|
|
| 0.9552 | 0.2567 |
|
|
| 0.3654 |
| Cp
ex (Peak 2) | 0.3450 |
|
|
| 0.8136 | 0.5221 | 0.1599 | 0.7857 |
|
|
| Cp
ex (Peak 1)/Cp
ex(Peak 2) |
|
|
|
| 0.7108 | 0.2380 |
|
|
|
|
a Tmax, temperature of the peak maximum;
b TFM, first moment temperature;
c Cp ex (Peak 1), excess specific heat capacity of the main transition;
d Cp ex (Peak 2), excess specific heat capacity of the second transition;
e Cp ex (Peak 1)/Cp ex (Peak 2), ratio of the excess specific heat capacities of the main and second transitions;
f LSIL, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL);
g HSIL, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); underlined values indicate high confidence of statistically significant differences in median thermogram parameters between clinical groups where p-values were less than 0.05; italics indicate differences in median parameter values which are of moderate statistical significance where p-values were between 0.05 and 0.1.
Figure 3Discriminate principal components analysis (dPCA) of MALDI-TOF MS peptidomic data.
MALDI-TOF MS spectra were aligned and binned using Markerview software version 1.2 (Applied Biosystems, Framingham, MA) and analyzed using discriminant Principal Component Analysis (dPCA). The top two principal components from the dPCA analysis of MALDI-TOF MS data for free urine peptides sort cervical cancer (asterisks), CIN 2 (triangles) and control cervix (circles) urine samples into discriminate groups.
Figure 4Discriminate principal components analysis (dPCA) of MALDI-TOF MS peptidomic data.
MALDI-TOF MS spectra were aligned and binned using Markerview software version 1.2 (Applied Biosystems, Framingham, MA) and analyzed using discriminant Principal Component Analysis (dPCA). The top two principal components from the dPCA analysis of MALDI-TOF MS data for peptides released following precipitation of plasma proteins by addition of acetonitrile/acetic acid. (FX2; Fraction 2) sort cervical cancer (asterisks), CIN 2 (triangles) and control cervix (circles) plasma samples into discriminate groups.
Differentially abundant plasma and urine peptides (900–3000 m/z) correlating with cervical cancer, CIN 2 or control samples.
| No. | Peptide Mass (m/z) | Sample Set | Protein Identified | Distribution in Samples |
| 1 | 904.53 | FX3 | kininogen L,high MW | Absent in Control; Cerv Ca = CIN 2 |
| 2 | 1097.49 | Urine | – | CIN 2 = Control>Cerv Ca |
| 3 | 1126.503 | Urine | alpha-1 type I collagen | CIN 2> Cerv Ca >Control |
| 4 | 1192.67 | FX3 | – | Absent in Control; Cerv Ca = CIN 2 |
| 5 | 1236.56 | Urine | alpha-1 type I collagen | CIN 2> Control>Cerv Ca |
| 6 | 1425.65 | Urine | alpha-1 type XVII collagen | Absent in Control; CIN 2>Cerv Ca |
| 7 | 1524.71 | Urine | – | CIN 2> Cerv Ca = Control |
| 8 | 1530.91 | FX1 | – | Absent in CIN 2; Cerv Ca = Control |
| 9 | 1587.97 | Urine | – | CIN 2> Control>Cerv Ca |
| 10 | 1746.78 | FX1 | – | Control>Cerv Ca = CIN 2 |
| 11 | 1943.93 | FX2 | kininogen L,high MW | Control |
| 12 | 2080.98 | FX2 | kininogen L,high MW | Control |
| 13 | 2209.06 | FX2 | kininogen L,high MW | Control>Cerv Ca = CIN 2 |
| 14 | 2228.05 | FX2 | – | Absent in CIN 2; Control>Cerv Ca |
| 15 | 2271.13 | FX2 | – | Control>Cerv Ca = CIN 2 |
a FX3, Fraction 3: peptides released during the immunodepletion of albumin and IgG from plasma.
b FX1, Fraction 1: freely soluble plasma peptides.
c FX2, Fraction 2: peptides bound to total plasma proteins.