| Literature DB >> 25584743 |
Jorge Pereira1, Priscilla Porto-Figueira2, Carina Cavaco3, Khushman Taunk4, Srikanth Rapole5, Rahul Dhakne6, Hampapathalu Nagarajaram7, José S Câmara8.
Abstract
Currently, a small number of diseases, particularly cardiovascular (CVDs), oncologic (ODs), neurodegenerative (NDDs), chronic respiratory diseases, as well as diabetes, form a severe burden to most of the countries worldwide. Hence, there is an urgent need for development of efficient diagnostic tools, particularly those enabling reliable detection of diseases, at their early stages, preferably using non-invasive approaches. Breath analysis is a non-invasive approach relying only on the characterisation of volatile composition of the exhaled breath (EB) that in turn reflects the volatile composition of the bloodstream and airways and therefore the status and condition of the whole organism metabolism. Advanced sampling procedures (solid-phase and needle traps microextraction) coupled with modern analytical technologies (proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry, selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry, ion mobility spectrometry, e-noses, etc.) allow the characterisation of EB composition to an unprecedented level. However, a key challenge in EB analysis is the proper statistical analysis and interpretation of the large and heterogeneous datasets obtained from EB research. There is no standard statistical framework/protocol yet available in literature that can be used for EB data analysis towards discovery of biomarkers for use in a typical clinical setup. Nevertheless, EB analysis has immense potential towards development of biomarkers for the early disease diagnosis of diseases.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25584743 PMCID: PMC4381289 DOI: 10.3390/metabo5010003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
Figure 1Generic layout for exhaled breath (EB) analysis. Abbreviations used: GC—gas chromatography, MEPS—microextraction by packed sorbent, POC—point of care, PTR-MS—proton transfer reaction with mass spectrometry, PTR-TOF-MS—proton transfer reaction with time-of-flight mass spectrometry, SIFT-MS—Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry, NTDs—Needle Trap Devices, MVA—multivariated analysis, PCA—Principal Component Analysis, PLS—Partial least-square, VOCs—volatile organic compounds
Figure 2Exhaled CO2 monitoring by normal Capnograph: (A)—initial of alveolar sampling; (B)—final of alveolar sampling; (C)—final of exhalation. Differentiation phases of breathing: (I)-inspiratory phase; (II)-mixing phase; (III)-alveolar phase (adapted from [34,35]).
Characterisation of selected exhaled breath (EB) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reported in the literature.
| Target VOCs (Putative Biomarkers) (LODs) | Methodology | Sample (Patients/Controls) | Sensitivity/Specificity (%) | Statistical Approach ( | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-octene | SPME/GC-MS | 72/10 | DFA model: 86.0/96.0 | [ | |
| isoprene (81.5 ppb), acetone (458.7 ppb), | PTR-MS/GC-MS | 285/472 | 4 compounds: 52.0/100; | [ | |
| isoprene (6041 pM), pentane (647.5 pM), | SPME/GC-MS | 36/50 | 72.2/93.6 | [ | |
| 2-butanone (1.78–8.38 nM), | FT-ICR-MS | 97/88 | 89.8/81.3 | [ | |
| formaldehyde (7 ppb) | PTR-MS | 17/170 | 54.0/99.0 | [ | |
| pentanal (0.001 nM), | OFD-SPME/GC-MS | 12/12,12 | C5: 75.0/95.5; | [ | |
| ethane | GC-FID | 26/14 | - | [ | |
| isoprene (0.095 nM), acetone (0.985 nM), | SPME/GC-MS | 31/31,31 | - | [ | |
| hexane, methylpentane, o-toluidine, | e-nose, GC-MS | 42/18 | Good | [ | |
| styrene, decane, isoprene, benzene, undecane, | SPME, virtual SAW gas sensor | 20,7/15 | Good | [ | |
| isobutene, methanol, ethanol, acetone, pentane, isoprene, isopropanol , dimethylsulfide, | e-nose, GC-MS | 14/45; 14/62 | 71.4/91.9 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | colorimetric sensors | 49,18,15, 20,20/21 | Model validation: 73.3/72.4 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 10,10/10 | - | [ | |
| Set of 42 VOCs | gold nanoparticle sensors, SPME/GC-MS | 40/56 | - | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | colorimetric sensors | 92/137 | High, several groups defined | [ | |
| 2-hexanone, 3-heptanone; 2,2,4-Trimethyl-hexane | SPME/GC-MS, sensors | 12,4,–1 | 100/80 | [ | |
| VOCs profile | PTR-MS, | 220/441, | variable | - | [ |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 38/42 | 95/88 | [ | |
| cyclopentane (0.40 ng/L), cyclohexane (4.67 ng/L) | TD-GC-MS | 13 + 13/13 | 92.3/82.7 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 13,13/13 | 92.3/82.7 | [ | |
| nonane; 5-methyl-tridecane; 3-methyl-undecane; | TD-GC-MS | 51/102 | 94.1/73.8 | [ | |
| undecane, dodecane, tridecane, | TD-GC-MS | 54/204 | 78.5/88.3 | [ | |
| 3,3-Dimethyl-pentane, | GC-MS | 22/22 | - | [ | |
| hexanal (3.75 ppbV), heptanal (3.22 ppbV), | GC-MS | 22,17/24 | 72.7/91.7 | [ | |
| VOCs profile ( | POC device (TD-GC-SAW) | 37 + 35/172 | [ | ||
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 16,13/7 | 94/80 | [ | |
| decanal; 1,3-dimethylbenzene; 1,2-pentadiene Cyclohexane; Methyl cyclohexane; 4-methyloctane | GC-MS | 37/41 | 86/83 | [ | |
| 10 discriminant VOCs | SPME/GC-MS | 20/20 | - | [ | |
| 4 discriminant VOCs | GC-MS | 26/22 | - | [ | |
| 6 discriminant VOCs | sensors, GC-MS | 37,32, –61 | 89/90 | [ | |
| 8 discriminant VOCs | e-nose, GC–MS | 22,25/40 | 100/100 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 36/23 | 90/80 | [ | |
| 2,3-dihydro-benzofuran, | sensor, GC-MS | 95.8/100 | [ | ||
| hexanal; 1-octen-3-ol; octane | SPME/GC-MS | 18/19 | 100/100 | [ | |
| 3-Hydroxy-2-butanone, styrene, and decane | GC-MS | 30/27 + 36 | A: 86.7/91.7 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 110/108 | 72.2/75.1 | [ | |
| Several discriminant VOCs, | e-nose, GC-MS | 20/20 | - | [ | |
| decane; dodecane; tetradecane; 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene; 2,2-dimethylhexane; | GC-MS | 35/15 | - | [ | |
| nonane; 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethylheptane; decane; | GC-MS | 32/27 | 96/95 | [ | |
| Several discriminant VOCs | GC-MS | 63/57 | 89/95 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose/GC-MS | 27/24 | High, several groups defined | [ | |
| 17 discriminant VOCs | GC-TOF-MS | 252 | high | [ | |
| octane, acetaldehyde and 3-methylheptane | GC-MS | 23/53 | 90 | [ | |
| acetone, isoprene, n-Pentane | GC-FID/GC-MS | 19/18 | - | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 40/20 | 85/65 | [ | |
| 6 discriminant VOCs | GC/MS | 42/59 | 95.7/78.9 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | POC device (TD-GC-SAW) | 130/121 | 71.2/72 | [ | |
| Alkanes and derivatives, | GC/MS | 226 | variable | [ | |
| Ethane (No steroid treatment—2.77 ± 0.25 ppb; | GC-FID | 22/14 | - | [ | |
| MDA (57.2 nM), hexanal (63.5 nM) | LC-MS/MS | 20/12,20 | - | [ | |
| Mass-spectra | PTR-MS | - | 43/161 | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | eNose | 33/10 | 100/100 | [ | |
| VOCs profile | MCC/IMS | High, variable with statist. used | 30 + 54/35 | [ | |
| pentane (0.36 ppb), dimethyl sulphide (3.9 ppb) | GC-MS | 20/20 | - | [ | |
| carbonyl sulphide (110 ± 60 pptv), dimethyl sulphide (4.780 ± 1.350 pptv), carbon disulphide (26 ± 38 pptv) | GC-MS | 20/23 | - | [ | |
| ethane (no steroid treatment—1.99 ± 0.20 ppb; steroid treatment—0.67 ± 0.11 ppb) | GC-FID | 23/14 | - | [ | |
| acetone (256–1974 ppb), pentane (20–74 ppb) | SIFT-MS | 25/16 | - | [ | |
| acetone (3.7 ppb) | GC-MS | 59,30/20 | 83/100 | [ | |
| Isoprene | GC/MS, SIFT-MS | - | - | [ | |
| trimethyl amine | GC, SIFT-MS | - | - | [ | |
| Ethanethiol, dimethylsulfide | PTR-MS | - | - | [ | |
| 2-butanone (3.2 ± 0.5 ppbv), | PTR-TOF-MS | 12/14 | 83/86 | [ | |
| acetone (71.7 ppb), isoprene (14.7 ppb), | SIFT-MS | 37/23 | - | - | [ |
| 2-propanol, acetaldehyde, acetone, ethanol, pentane, trimethylamine | SIFT-MS | 40,40/43 | 90/80 | [ | |
| 3-heptanone | PTR-MS and GC-MS | - | - | - | [ |
| acetone | SPME/GC-MS, SIFT-MS, laser spectroscopy | - | - | - | [ |
| acetone | e-nose, SIFT-MS | 8 | - | - | [ |
| acetone (160–862 ppb) | SIFT-MS | - | 97.9/100 | [ | |
| acetone; isopropanol; toluene; m-xylene; | SPME/GC-MS | 48/39 | - | [ | |
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 117/108 | 87.7/86.9 | [ | |
| NO (39 ppb) | Ozone chemioluminescence | 40/28 | - | [ | |
| TMA (0.33 ppb) | TD-GC-MS | 14/9 | - | [ | |
| Uraemia | IMS/GC-MS | 28 + 26/28 | [ | ||
| VOCs pattern recognition | e-nose | 110/108 | 86.6/83.5 | [ | |
| Set A (healthy controls/CD remission)- 6 discriminatory VOCs; Set B (healthy controls/active CD); set C (active CD/remission)- 10 discriminatory VOCs | GC-TOF-MS | 725/110 | A and B (96/97); C (81/80) | [ | |
| 13C O2/12CO2 | Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy (NIR) | - | 100/100 | - | [ |
| ethane and pentane | TD-GC-MS | 28/15 | - | - | [ |
Abbreviations: TD—Thermal desorption, AUC—area under the curves, COPD—Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, CVV—cross-validation method, DA—discriminant analysis; FQDM—Fisher’s Quadratic Discriminant Method, FT-ICR-MS– Fourier transform-ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry, GC/MS—gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, k-NN—k-nearest neighbour, LDA—Linear Discriminant Analysis; LOO—leave-one-out method, MCCV—Monte Carlo cross-validation, MVA—multivariate data analysis; OPLS—orthogonal PLS; PCA—principal component analysis; PLS—partial least squares; PNN—probabilistic neural network; PTR-TOF-MS– proton-transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry, PTR-MS– proton-transfer reaction mass spectrometry, RF- Random Forests, ROC—Receiver operator characteristic; SIFT-MS—Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry, SIMCA—soft independent modelling of class analogy, SPME—solid-phase microextraction, VOCs—volatile organic compounds, WDA—weighted digital analysis.
Figure 3Overview of the methodologies most used in exhaling breath (EB) analysis and comparison of some analytical features, as limits of detection, sensitivity and specificity. Additional inputs as time of analysis and simplicity are also included. Abbreviations used: FID—flame ionization detection; GC—gas chromatography; MCC-IMS—multi capillary column ion mobility spectrometry; POC—point of care; PTR-TOF-MS-proton transfer reaction with time-of-flight mass spectrometry; SIFT-MS—Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry.