| Literature DB >> 26927094 |
Susanna K P Lau1,2,3,4, Kim-Chung Lee5, George C S Lo6, Vanessa S Y Ding7, Wang-Ngai Chow8, Tony Y H Ke9, Shirly O T Curreem10, Kelvin K W To11,12,13,14, Deborah T Y Ho15, Siddharth Sridhar16, Sally C Y Wong17, Jasper F W Chan18, Ivan F N Hung19,20, Kong-Hung Sze21, Ching-Wan Lam22, Kwok-Yung Yuen23,24,25,26, Patrick C Y Woo27,28,29,30.
Abstract
To identify potential biomarkers for improving diagnosis of melioidosis, we compared plasma metabolome profiles of melioidosis patients compared to patients with other bacteremia and controls without active infection, using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-quadruple time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the metabolomic profiles of melioidosis patients are distinguishable from bacteremia patients and controls. Using multivariate and univariate analysis, 12 significant metabolites from four lipid classes, acylcarnitine (n = 6), lysophosphatidylethanolamine (LysoPE) (n = 3), sphingomyelins (SM) (n = 2) and phosphatidylcholine (PC) (n = 1), with significantly higher levels in melioidosis patients than bacteremia patients and controls, were identified. Ten of the 12 metabolites showed area-under-receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) >0.80 when compared both between melioidosis and bacteremia patients, and between melioidosis patients and controls. SM(d18:2/16:0) possessed the largest AUC when compared, both between melioidosis and bacteremia patients (AUC 0.998, sensitivity 100% and specificity 91.7%), and between melioidosis patients and controls (AUC 1.000, sensitivity 96.7% and specificity 100%). Our results indicate that metabolome profiling might serve as a promising approach for diagnosis of melioidosis using patient plasma, with SM(d18:2/16:0) representing a potential biomarker. Since the 12 metabolites were related to various pathways for energy and lipid metabolism, further studies may reveal their possible role in the pathogenesis and host response in melioidosis.Entities:
Keywords: Burkholderia pseudomallei; biomarkers; melioidosis; metabolomics; plasma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26927094 PMCID: PMC4813170 DOI: 10.3390/ijms17030307
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot in positive mode based on human plasma of 22 melioidosis, 24 bacteremia and 30 controls without active infection. The PCA score plots showed that samples from melioidosis patients, bacteremia patients and controls without active infection were clustered separately.
Figure 2Volcano Plot, using fold-change (FC) >1.5 and p-values cut-off <0.05 using Student’s t-test. The statistical analyses were performed for comparison between melioidosis and bacteremia patients in (A) positive mode as well as melioidosis patients and controls without active infection in (B) positive mode.
Plasma metabolites with higher levels in melioidosis patients compared to bacterimia patients and controls.
| Compound | Experimental Mass, | Ion | Retention Time (min) | MS/MS Fragment Masses | Elemental Composition | Metabolite Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 260.1842 | [M + H]+ | 4.47 | 60.0808, 85.0285, 99.0803, 144.1018, 201.1117 | C13H25NO4 | acylcarnitine | |
| 288.2157 | [M + H]+ | 6.78 | 60.0805, 85.0283, 127.1110, 144.1019, 229.1438 | C15H29NO4 | acylcarnitine | |
| 2-Decenoylcarnitine | 314.2326 | [M + H]+ | 7.84 | 60.0806, 85.0281, 144.1015, 153.1257, 255.1591 | C17H31NO4 | acylcarnitine |
| Decanoylcarnitine | 316.2476 | [M + H]+ | 8.62 | 60.0806, 85.0284, 144.1017, 155.1424, 257.1748 | C17H33NO4 | acylcarnitine |
| 342.2636 | [M + H]+ | 9.38 | 60.0807, 85.0283, 144.1019, 181.1584, 283.1880 | C19H35NO4 | acylcarnitine | |
| Dodecanoylcarnitine | 344.2775 | [M + H]+ | 10.20 | 60.0806, 85.0284, 144.1008, 183.1735, 285.2088 | C19H37NO4 | acylcarnitine |
| LysoPE(16:0/0:0) | 454.2934 | [M + H]+ | 14.64 | 44.0496, 62.0598, 216.0642, 239.2361, | C21H44NO7P | lysophosphatidylethanolamine |
| LysoPE(0:0/18:0) | 482.3244 | [M + H]+ | 16.94 | 44.0494, 216.0628, 267.2644, 285.2747, 341.3060 | C23H48NO7P | lysophosphatidylethanolamine |
| LysoPE(18:0/0:0) | 482.3251 | [M + H]+ | 17.61 | 44.0497, 62.0600, 216.0618, 267.2672, | C23H48NO7P | lysophosphatidylethanolamine |
| SM(d16:1/16:0) | 675.5444 | [M + H]+ | 27.88 | 60.0808, 104.1072, 184.0735, 236.2355 | C37H75N2O6P | sphingomyelins |
| SM(d18:2/16:0) | 701.5605 | [M + H]+ | 28.64 | 60.0802, 104.1068, 184.0736, 262.2575, 683.5484 | C39H77N2O6P | sphingomyelins |
| PC(16:0/16:0) | 734.5616 | [M + H]+ | 30.58 | 60.0801, 104.1060, 184.0727, 478.3251, 496.3353 | C40H80NO8P | phosphatidylcholine |
The area-under-receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves calculated at optimal cutoff as well as p-value and Fold-change for the twelve significant metabolites.
| Significant Metabolites | Melioidosis
| Melioidosis
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC a | 95% CI b | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Fold-Change | AUC a | 95% CI b | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Fold-Change | |||
| 0.665 | 0.497–0.805 | 81.8 | 50.0 | 1.12 × 10−2 | 2.32 ↑d | 0.849 | 0.728–0.959 | 83.3 | 81.8 | 1.10 × 10−3 | 3.33 ↑d | |
| 0.856 | 0.710–0.964 | 86.4 | 79.2 | 6.34 × 10−4 | 3.49 ↑ | 0.827 | 0.693–0.942 | 83.3 | 86.4 | 2.90 × 10−3 | 2.76 ↑ | |
| 2-Decenoylcarnitine | 0.839 | 0.700–0.937 | 77.3 | 79.2 | 4.77 × 10−3 | 3.63 ↑ | 0.829 | 0.682–0.952 | 90.0 | 81.8 | 1.90 × 10−3 | 3.56 ↑ |
| Decanoylcarnitine | 0.850 | 0.728–0.972 | 77.3 | 87.5 | 1.46 × 10−4 | 3.53 ↑ | 0.821 | 0.680–0.949 | 83.3 | 77.3 | 1.45 × 10−3 | 2.66 ↑ |
| 0.850 | 0.736–0.965 | 77.3 | 79.2 | 1.20 × 10−5 | 2.40 ↑ | 0.886 | 0.776–0.965 | 90.0 | 72.7 | 5.43 × 10−8 | 2.88 ↑ | |
| Dodecanoylcarnitine | 0.822 | 0.700–0.935 | 72.7 | 91.7 | 3.10 × 10−5 | 2.46 ↑ | 0.741 | 0.583–0.877 | 76.7 | 72.7 | 9.60 × 10−3 | 1.66 ↑ |
| LysoPE(16:0/0:0) | 0.979 | 0.947–1.000 | 90.9 | 95.8 | 1.51 × 10−10 | 5.20 ↑ | 0.812 | 0.672–0.933 | 73.3 | 81.8 | 2.56 × 10−6 | 2.01 ↑ |
| LysoPE(0:0/18:0) | 0.994 | 0.982–1.000 | 95.5 | 100.0 | 6.08 × 10−10 | 7.51 ↑ | 0.819 | 0.658–0.926 | 90.0 | 77.3 | 1.96 × 10−6 | 2.23 ↑ |
| LysoPE(18:0/0:0) | 0.998 | 0.993–1.000 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 1.77 × 10−11 | 6.09 ↑ | 0.856 | 0.725–0.958 | 90.0 | 77.3 | 1.41 × 10−7 | 2.16 ↑ |
| SM(d16:1/16:0) | 0.968 | 0.927–1.000 | 90.9 | 91.7 | 7.19 × 10−10 | 3.41 ↑ | 0.884 | 0.783–0.983 | 83.3 | 77.3 | 2.67 × 10−8 | 2.16 ↑ |
| SM(d18:2/16:0) | 0.998 | 0.993–1.000 | 100.0 | 91.7 | 1.88 × 10−12 | 3.32 ↑ | 1.000 | 1.000–1.000 | 96.7 | 100.0 | 1.28 × 10−13 | 2.65 ↑ |
| PC(16:0/16:0) | 0.835 | 0.695–0.976 | 77.3 | 87.5 | 7.01 × 10−5 | 9.64 ↑ | 0.870 | 0.724–0.989 | 93.3 | 81.8 | 2.77 × 10−6 | 21.72 ↑ |
a AUC = area-under-receiver operating characteristic curve; b CI = confidence interval; c All p-values were calculated using Student’s t-test; d↑ = Higher level comparing melioidosis to the respective groups.
Figure 3MS/MS mass spectra and predicted structures with expected fragmentation profiles of the 12 biomarkers in melioidosis patient plasma: (A) l-octanoylcarnitine; (B) decanoylcarnitine; (C) dodecanoylcarnitine; (D) lysophosphatidylethanolamine (LysoPE)(16:0/0:0); (E) LysoPE(18:0/0:0); (F) phosphatidylcholine PC(16:0/16:0); (G) LysoPE(0:0/18:0) (H) l-hexanoylcarnitine; (I) sphingomyelins SM(d16:1/16:0); (J) 2-decenoylcarnitine; (K) SM(d18:2/16:0); and (L) trans-2-dodecenoylcarnitine with or without comparison to commercially available standards.
Figure 4Box-and-whiskers plots representing relative abundance of: (A) l-hexanoylcarnitine; (B) l-octanoylcarnitine; (C) 2-decenoylcarnitine; (D) decanoylcarnitine; (E) trans-2-dodecenoylcarnitine; (F) dodecanoylcarnitine; (G) LysoPE(16:0/0:0); (H) LysoPE(0:0/18:0); (I) LysoPE(18:0/0:0); (J) SM(d16:1/16:0); (K) SM(d18:2/16:0); and (L) PC(16:0/16:0) in plasma of melioidosis patients, bacteremia patients and controls without active infections. The relative abundance of each metabolite in plasma of melioidosis patients was significantly higher than the other two groups using Student’s t-test (p-value < 0.01).
Figure 5Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for SM(d18:2/16:0) with Area Under the Curves (AUC) with 95% confidence interval, when compared (A) between melioidosis and other bacteremia patients; and (B) between melioidosis patients and controls without active infection.