| Literature DB >> 26304457 |
Luca Lavra1, Alexandro Catini2, Alessandra Ulivieri1, Rosamaria Capuano2, Leila Baghernajad Salehi1, Salvatore Sciacchitano1,3, Armando Bartolazzi4,5, Sara Nardis6, Roberto Paolesse6, Eugenio Martinelli2, Corrado Di Natale2.
Abstract
The efficacy of breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analysis for the screening of patients bearing breast cancer lesions has been demonstrated by using gas chromatography and artificial olfactory systems. On the other hand, in-vitro studies suggest that VOCs detection could also give important indications regarding molecular and tumorigenic characteristics of tumor cells. Aim of this study was to analyze VOCs in the headspace of breast cancer cell lines in order to ascertain the potentiality of VOCs signatures in giving information about these cells and set-up a new sensor system able to detect breast tumor-associated VOCs. We identified by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry analysis a VOCs signature that discriminates breast cancer cells for: i) transformed condition; ii) cell doubling time (CDT); iii) Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors (ER, PgR) expression, and HER2 overexpression. Moreover, the signals obtained from a temperature modulated metal oxide semiconductor gas sensor can be classified in order to recognize VOCs signatures associated with breast cancer cells, CDT and ER expression. Our results demonstrate that VOCs analysis could give clinically relevant information about proliferative and molecular features of breast cancer cells and pose the basis for the optimization of a low-cost diagnostic device to be used for tumors characterization.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26304457 PMCID: PMC4548242 DOI: 10.1038/srep13246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic of the experimental measurements.
Characteristics of breast-derived cell lines used in the study.
| Cell line | Isolatedfrom | CDT(h) | MolecularSubtype | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCF-10a | BT | FD | 96 | − | − | − | |
| MDA-231 | PE | ADC | 24 | − | − | − | |
| MCF-7 | PE | IDC | 24 | + | + | − | |
| SKBR-3 | PE | ADC | 36 | − | − | + | |
| BT-474 | PT | IDC | 48 | − | + | + | |
| ZR75-1 | PE | IDC | 80 | + | + | + |
BT, non-malignant breast tissue; FD, fibrocystic disease; PE, pleural effusion; PT, primary tumor; ADC, adenocarcinoma; IDC, intraductal carcinoma. The results of the IHC characterization of the breast cell lines used in the study are indicated. ER/PgR/HER2 status: ER/PgR positivity, HER2 overexpression. The molecular classification of the breast cancer cell lines subtypes according to WHO guidelines is reported [3].
Figure 2Fingerprint patterns of VOCs detected in headspace of breast-derived cell lines.
Heat-map with all the selected VOCs from culture media headspace. Color-coding shows the abundance of each compound measured in the sample normalized to the maximum abundance calculated in all samples.
VOCs discriminating the headspace of breast-derived cell lines.
| Increase | Aromatic Amines | Pyrrolidine | 123-75-1 | 0.02 |
| Hydrocarbons | 2,3-Dimethylhexane, | 584-94-1 | 1.8 × 10−4 | |
| 2,4-Dimethyl-1-heptene | 19549-87-2 | 1.3 × 10−9 | ||
| 2,2-Dimethylbutane | 75-83-2 | 8.1 × 10−5 | ||
| 1,3-Di-tert-butylbenzene | 1014-60-4 | 1.8 × 10−9 | ||
| 2-Xylene | 95-47-6 | 0.77 | ||
| Ketons | 2-Nonanone | 821-55-6 | 6.5 × 10−21 | |
| 4-Methyl-2-heptanone | 6137-06-0 | 5.8 × 10−11 | ||
| 2-Dodecanone | 6175-49-1 | 3.6 × 10−3 | ||
| Carboxylic acid | Isobutyric acid, allyl ester | 15727-77-2 | 3.6 × 10−10 | |
| Fatty alcohol | 2-Ethylhexanol | 104-76-7 | 0.41 | |
| Decrease | Aromatic aldehyde | Benzaldehyde | 100-52-7 | 0.013 |
| Secondary alcohol | Cyclohexanol | 108-93-0 | 0.92 | |
| Manova | 1.6 × 10−16 |
Analysis of VOCs in the headspace of breast cell lines by GC-MS. Breast non-transformed and cancer cell lines were cultured at the same conditions. VOCs released (increase) or consumed/degraded (decrease) by breast cell lines are reported with respect to control medium. The p-values obtained by t-test analysis for each compound and by MANOVA analysis for all compounds are shown. A p-value < 0.05 has been considered statistically significant.
VOCs discriminating breast non-transformed from cancer-derived cell lines.
| Increase | Hydrocarbons | 2,4-Dimethyl-1-heptene | 19549-87-2 | 3.0 × 10−4 |
| 2-Xylene | 95-47-6 | 1.0 × 10−4 | ||
| 2,3-Dimethylhexane | 584-94-1 | 1.0 × 10−4 | ||
| 2,2-Dimethylbutane | 75-83-2 | 1.0 × 10−4 | ||
| Secondary alcohol | Cyclohexanol | 108–93-0 | 2.0 × 10−5 | |
| Ketons | 2-Dodecanone | 6175-49-1 | 0.003 | |
| Decrease | Ketons | 2-Nonanone | 821-55-6 | 0.03 |
| 4-Methyl-2-heptanone | 6137-06-0 | 0.04 | ||
| Manova | 7.7 × 10−3 |
GC-MS analysis in the non-transformed MCF-10A and in cancer derived cell lines. The p-values obtained by t-test analysis for each compound and by MANOVA analysis for all compounds reported in Table 2 are shown. A p-value < 0.05 has been considered statistically significant.
*considering all the VOCs of the Table 2.
Correlation of VOCs with replication time and molecular markers of breast-derived cell lines.
| Hydrocarbons | 2,4-Dimethyl-1-heptene | 2.9 × 10−4 | 0.78 | 0.30 | 0.89 |
| 1,3-Di-tert-butylbenzene | 0.29 | 0.88 | 0.049 | 0.25 | |
| 2-Xylene | 0.14 | 6.2 × 10−4 | 2.5 × 10−5 | 0.08 | |
| 2,3-Dimethylhexane | 8.4 × 10−5 | 0.98 | 0.15 | 0.41 | |
| Secondary alcohol | Cyclohexanol | 0.001 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.78 |
| Fatty alcohol | 2-Ethylhexanol | 1.9 × 10−6 | 9.1 × 10−5 | 0.046 | 0.16 |
| Carboxylic acid | Isobutyric acid, allyl ester | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.59 | 0.86 |
| Ketons | 2-Dodecanone | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.01 |
| 2-Nonanone | 0.11 | 0.001 | 0.58 | 0.85 | |
| 4-Methyl-2-heptanone | 0.023 | 6.4 × 10−4 | 0.18 | 0.48 | |
| Manova | 5 × 10−4 | 3.5 × 10−5 | 7.4 × 10−4 | 0.03 |
Comparison of GC-MS results in all breast-derived cell lines grouped based on CDT, expression of ER, PgR and amplification of HER2. Arrows indicate the trend for each compound in each group. The p-values obtained by t-test analysis for each compound and by MANOVA analysis for all compounds reported in Table 2 are shown. A p-value < 0.05 has been considered statistically significant.
Figure 3(A) Schematic of the self-modulation sensor. (B) Circuit implementation used in this work; (C) From top to bottom, examples of output signal, temperature modulation signal and sensor temperature.
Figure 4Clustering relationship of self-modulated sensor outputs.
(A) Score plots of the first two principal components built with sensor data. A clear separation is observed among the MCF10A non-transformed control cell line (encircled in green), MDA231 cancer cell line (encircled in red), culture media without cells (encircled in black) and distilled water (encircled in blue). (B) Score plots of the first two principal components built with sensor data. A comparison of the sensor responses for the MCF-10A breast control cell line and five breast cancer cell lines (MDA231, MCF-7, ZR751, BT474, SKBR3) is shown.
Confusion Matrix of self-modulation sensor outputs.
| Cancer | 29 | 4 | |
| No cancer | 3 | 12 | |
| 88 | |||
| 80 | |||
| 85 | |||
Classification success of the PLS-DA classification model to predict breast cancer cell lines-derived samples from all other. Sensitivity = TP/(TP + FN); specificity = TN/(TN + FP); accuracy = (TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN).
Where TP = True Positive; TN = True Negative; FP = False Positive; FN = False Negative.
Confusion Matrix of the PLS-DA classification model built using the sensor data to predict: