PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether upfront cellular enrichment via laser capture microdissection (LCM) is necessary for accurately quantifying predictive biomarkers in nonsmall cell lung cancer tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Fifteen snap frozen surgical biopsies were analyzed. Whole tissue lysate and matched highly enriched tumor epithelium via LCM were obtained for each patient. The expression and activation/phosphorylation levels of 26 proteins were measured by reverse phase protein microarray. Differences in signaling architecture of dissected and undissected matched pairs were visualized using unsupervised clustering analysis, bar graphs, and scatter plots. RESULTS: Overall patient matched LCM and undissected material displayed very distinct and differing signaling architectures with 93% of the matched pairs clustering separately. These differences were seen regardless of the amount of starting tumor epithelial content present in the specimen. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results indicate that LCM driven upfront cellular enrichment is necessary to accurately determine the expression/activation levels of predictive protein signaling markers although results should be evaluated in larger clinical settings. Upfront cellular enrichment of the target cell appears to be an important part of the workflow needed for the accurate quantification of predictive protein signaling biomarkers. Larger independent studies are warranted.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether upfront cellular enrichment via laser capture microdissection (LCM) is necessary for accurately quantifying predictive biomarkers in nonsmall cell lung cancer tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Fifteen snap frozen surgical biopsies were analyzed. Whole tissue lysate and matched highly enriched tumor epithelium via LCM were obtained for each patient. The expression and activation/phosphorylation levels of 26 proteins were measured by reverse phase protein microarray. Differences in signaling architecture of dissected and undissected matched pairs were visualized using unsupervised clustering analysis, bar graphs, and scatter plots. RESULTS: Overall patient matched LCM and undissected material displayed very distinct and differing signaling architectures with 93% of the matched pairs clustering separately. These differences were seen regardless of the amount of starting tumor epithelial content present in the specimen. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results indicate that LCM driven upfront cellular enrichment is necessary to accurately determine the expression/activation levels of predictive protein signaling markers although results should be evaluated in larger clinical settings. Upfront cellular enrichment of the target cell appears to be an important part of the workflow needed for the accurate quantification of predictive protein signaling biomarkers. Larger independent studies are warranted.
Authors: Virginia Espina; Kirsten H Edmiston; Michael Heiby; Mariaelena Pierobon; Manuela Sciro; Barbara Merritt; Stacey Banks; Jianghong Deng; Amy J VanMeter; David H Geho; Lucia Pastore; Joel Sennesh; Emanuel F Petricoin; Lance A Liotta Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2008-07-30 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Charles L Vogel; Melody A Cobleigh; Debu Tripathy; John C Gutheil; Lyndsay N Harris; Louis Fehrenbacher; Dennis J Slamon; Maureen Murphy; William F Novotny; Michael Burchmore; Steven Shak; Stanford J Stewart; Michael Press Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julia D Wulfkuhle; Daniela Berg; Claudia Wolff; Rupert Langer; Kai Tran; Julie Illi; Virginia Espina; Mariaelena Pierobon; Jianghong Deng; Angela DeMichele; Axel Walch; Holger Bronger; Ingrid Becker; Christine Waldhör; Heinz Höfler; Laura Esserman; Lance A Liotta; Karl-Friedrich Becker; Emanuel F Petricoin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Claudius Mueller; Ana C deCarvalho; Tom Mikkelsen; Norman L Lehman; Valerie Calvert; Virginia Espina; Lance A Liotta; Emanuel F Petricoin Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: F Cappuzzo; P A Jänne; M Skokan; G Finocchiaro; E Rossi; C Ligorio; P A Zucali; L Terracciano; L Toschi; M Roncalli; A Destro; M Incarbone; M Alloisio; A Santoro; M Varella-Garcia Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-10-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Julia D Wulfkuhle; Runa Speer; Mariaelena Pierobon; Julie Laird; Virginia Espina; Jianghong Deng; Enzo Mammano; Sherry X Yang; Sandra M Swain; Donato Nitti; Laura J Esserman; Claudio Belluco; Lance A Liotta; Emanuel F Petricoin Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Stephen J Murphy; John C Cheville; Shabnam Zarei; Sarah H Johnson; Robert A Sikkink; Farhad Kosari; Andrew L Feldman; Bruce W Eckloff; R Jeffrey Karnes; George Vasmatzis Journal: DNA Res Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Mariaelena Pierobon; Corinne Ramos; Shukmei Wong; K Alex Hodge; Jessica Aldrich; Sara Byron; Stephen P Anthony; Nicholas J Robert; Donald W Northfelt; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Linda Vocila; Julia Wulfkuhle; Guido Gambara; Rosa I Gallagher; Bryant Dunetz; Nicholas Hoke; Ting Dong; David W Craig; Massimo Cristofanilli; Brian Leyland-Jones; Lance A Liotta; Joyce A O'Shaughnessy; John D Carpten; Emanuel F Petricoin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Argun Akcakanat; Xiaofeng Zheng; Christian X Cruz Pico; Tae-Beom Kim; Ken Chen; Anil Korkut; Aysegul Sahin; Vijaykumar Holla; Emily Tarco; Gopal Singh; Senthil Damodaran; Gordon B Mills; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Maria Isabella Sereni; Elisa Baldelli; Guido Gambara; Antonella Ravaggi; K Alex Hodge; David S Alberts; Jose M Guillen-Rodriguez; Ting Dong; Maurizio Memo; Franco Odicino; Roberto Angioli; Lance A Liotta; Sergio L Pecorelli; Emanuel F Petricoin; Mariaelena Pierobon Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Nadia P Castro; Anand S Merchant; Karen L Saylor; Miriam R Anver; David S Salomon; Yelena G Golubeva Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 3.240