| Literature DB >> 27296761 |
Xia Guo1,2, Iskandar Bakri3, Abulizi Abudula3, Kalbinur Arken4, Mahmut Mijit4, Batur Mamtimin5, Halmurat Upur5.
Abstract
Research has shown that many cancers have acommon pathophysiological origin and often present with similar symptoms. In terms of Traditional Uighur Medicine (TUM) Hilit (body fluid) theory, abnormal Savda syndrome (ASS) formed by abnormal Hilit is the common phenotype of complex diseases and in particular tumours. Abnormal Savda Munziq (ASMq), one representative of TUM, has been effective in the treatment of cancer since ancient times. Despite the physiopathology of ASS, the relationship between causative factors and the molecular mechanism of ASMq are not fully understood. The current study expanded upon earlier work by integrating traditional diagnostic approaches with others utilizing systems biology technology for the analysis of proteomic (iTRAQ) and metabolomic ((1)H-NMR) profiles of Uighur Medicine target organ lesion (liver) tumours. The candidate proteins were analyzed by enrichment analysis of the biological process and biomarker filters. Subsequently, 3Omics web-based tools were used to determine the relationships between proteins and appropriate metabolites. ELISA assay and IHC methods were used to verify the proteomic result; the protein von Willebrand factor (vWF) may be the "therapeutic window" of ASMq and biomarkers of ASS. This study is likely to be of great significance for the standardization and modernization of TUM.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27296761 PMCID: PMC4906522 DOI: 10.1038/srep27831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Changes in body and liver weight after 20 weeks of DEN application.
| Group | Weight (g) | Liver weight (g) |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy group | 406.61 ± 18.19 | 12.25 ± 1.27 |
| ASS model group | 287.08 ± 15.52** | 30.7 ± 11.62* |
| Liver cancer control group | 310.13 ± 31.16* | 18.95 ± 5.63 |
vs healthy group, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Metabolites primarily responsible for separation in the PLS-DA Model.
| Between control group and ASS model group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Metabolite | Chemical shift (ppm) | Assignment | Coefficient (r) | |||
| Healthy group vs liver cancer control group | Liver cancer control vs ASS treatment control group | ASS treatment control vs ASS treatment group | |||||
| R2X | 0.77 | 0.62 | 0.68 | ||||
| Q2 | 0.37 | 0.71 | 0.65 | ||||
| 1 | lactate | 1.32 (d), 4.11 (q) | CH3, CH | 0.63 | |||
| 2 | alanine | 1.47 (d), 3.76 (q) | CH3, α-CH | 0.72 | |||
| 3 | glycoprotein | 2.03 (s) | NHCO-CH3 | 0.82 | |||
| 4 | glutamine | 2.13 (m), 3.75 (t) | β-CH2, α-CH | −0.79 | |||
| 5 | citric acid | 2.52 (d), 2.67 (d) | CH2, CH2 | 0.71 | 0.64 | ||
| 6 | citrulline | 1.87 (m) | β-CH2 | 0.80 | |||
| 7 | tyrosine | 7.18 (d) | H2/H6 | 0.85 | |||
| 8 | phenylalanine | 7.31 (m), 7.37 (m), 7.41 (m) | H2/H6, H4, H3/H5 | 0.65 | 0.78 | ||
| 9 | α-glucose | 3.53 (dd), 3.72 (dd), 5.23 (d) | C-H2, halfCH2-CH6, C-H1 | −0.69 | −0.85 | −0.68 | |
| 10 | β-glucose | 3.40 (t), 3.89 (dd), 4.64 (d) | C-H4, halfCH2-CH6, C-H1 | −0.75 | −0.88 | ||
| 11 | formic acid | 8.44 (s) | CH | 0.77 | −0.71 | ||
| Comparisons between the control group and the ASS model group | |||||||
| No. | Metabolite | Chemical shift (ppm) | Assignment | Coefficient (r) | |||
| ASS treatment control vs low dose ASMq group | ASS treatment control vs medium dose ASMq group | ASS treatment control vs high dose ASMq group | |||||
| R2 X | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.69 | ||||
| Q2 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.42 | ||||
| 1 | leucine | 0.95 (d), 0.97 (d), 1.72 (m) | δ-CH3, δ-CH3, β-CH2, CH | 0.68 | |||
| 2 | valine | 1.03 (d) | CH3 | 0.69 | |||
| 3 | lactate | 1.32 (d), 4.11 (q) | CH3, CH | ||||
| 4 | Alanine | 1.47 (d), 3.76 (q) | CH3, α-CH | 0.87 | |||
| 5 | glycoprotein | 2.03 (s) | NHCO-CH3 | −0.84 | |||
| 6 | glutamine | 2.13 (m), 3.75 (t) | β-CH2, α-CH | 0.88 | |||
| 7 | creatine | 3.03 (s), 3.93 (s) | CH3, CH2 | −0.75 | |||
| 9 | methylhistidine | 7.05 (s), 7.78 (s) | H4, H2 | 0.68 | |||
| 10 | α-glucose | 3.53 (dd), 3.72 (dd), 5.23 (d) | C-H2, halfCH2-CH6, C-H1 | 0.84 | 0.83 | ||
| 11 | β-glucose | 3.40 (t), 3.89 (dd),4.64 (d) | C-H4, halfCH2-CH6, C-H1 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.74 | |
| 12 | taurine | 3.25 (t) | CH2NH | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.69 | |
Note; s is singlet; d is doublet; t is triplet;q is quartet; m is multiplet; dd is doublet of doublets.
Figure 1Role of 68 candidate proteins specific to ASS HCC in biological processes and molecular function determined using IPA software analysis.
Figure 2Role of 29 candidate proteins specific to ASMq in biological processes and molecular function determined using IPA software analysis.
Potential biomarkers identified using IPA biomarker filter analysis.
| ASS HCC related potential biomarkers | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID | Description | Symbol | Log(Ratio) | Location |
| O54735 | cGMP-specific 3′, 5′-cyclic phosphodiesterase | PDE5A | 1.393 | Cytoplasm |
| P68511 | 14-3-3 proteineta | YWHAH | 1.315 | Cytoplasm |
| O88600 | Heat shock 70 kDa protein 4 | HSPA4 | −1.218 | Cytoplasm |
| P05065 | Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase A | ALDOA | −1.229 | Cytoplasm |
| Q9R0T4 | Cadherin-1 | CDH1 | −1.286 | Plasma Membrane |
| P07871 | 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase B, peroxisomal | ACAA1 | −1.326 | Cytoplasm |
| Q6IMF3 | Keratin, type II cytoskeletal 1 | KRT1 | −1.364 | Cytoplasm |
| Q5U2Z3 | Nucleosome assembly protein 1-like 4 | NAP1L4 | −1.571 | Cytoplasm |
| P17475 | Alpha-1-antiproteinase | SERPINA1 | −1.784 | Extracellular |
| P02764 | Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein | ORM1 | −2.789 | Extracellular |
| B. ASMq related potential biomarkers | ||||
| ID | Description | Symbol | Log(Ratio) | Location |
| P02764 | Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein | ORM1 | −2.789 | Extracellular |
| Q5U2Z3 | Nucleosome assembly protein 1-like 4 | NAP1L4 | −1.571 | Cytoplasm |
| P08934 | Kininogen 1 | KNG1 | 1.328 | Extracellular space |
| P12346 | Transferrin | TF | −1.957 | Extracellular space |
| Q99P74 | RAB27B, member RAS oncogene family | RAB27B | 1.405 | Cytoplasm |
ELISA verification of candidate protein expression in an animal model.
| Serum protein level (ng/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | NAP1L4 | KRT1 | THRb | vWF |
| Normal | 1.090 ± 0.676 | 2.134 ± 0.382 | 50.992 ± 22.094 | 96448.44 ± 34715.095 |
| Model group | 1.323 ± 1.525 | 2.034 ± 0.450 | 59.571 ± 22.082 | 161934.12 ± 38466.522a |
| ASS model group | 1.693 ± 1.235 | 2.336 ± 0.186 | 50.951 ± 10.375 | 158014.16 ± 26783.644a |
| Low dose ASMq group | 4.412 ± 4.280 | 1.662 ± 0.205b | 74.069 ± 17.968b | 152632.52 ± 26517.165 |
| Medium dose ASMq group | 2.252 ± 1.892 | 2.129 ± 0.267 | 46.617 ± 22.842 | 142002.12 ± 34628.528 |
| High dose ASMq group | 2.148 ± 2.955 | 2.106 ± 0.335 | 56.438 ± 24.070 | 150088.82 ± 52255.158 |
| F-value | 1.843 | 4.142 | 2.734 | 6.765 |
| 0.102 | 0.001 | 0.020 | 0.000 | |
avs normal group, P < 0.05; bvs ASS model group, P < 0.05.
IHC verification of candidate protein expression in liver tissue of an animal model.
| Protein levelsin liver tissue | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | PF4 | NAP1L4 | SERPINA | vWF |
| Normal | 29.1818 ± 12.600 | 21.8182 ± 11.7287 | 27.3636 ± 4.7609 | 32.3636 ± 14.9684 |
| Model group | 34.5385 ± 14.8358 | 37.6154 ± 14.4484 | 35.0714 ± 4.4283 | 54.1538 ± 12.4287 |
| ASS model group | 39.8750 ± 10.5866 | 33.7500 ± 14.4484 | 33.5000 ± 6.4807 | 56.2500 ± 16.2282a |
| Low dose ASMq group | 39.5833 ± 9.1697 | 38.3077 ± 9.9614 | 38.3846 ± 10.8438 | 57.0000 ± 13.3479 |
| Medium dose ASMq group | 37.0796 ± 10.5866 | 26.3846 ± 13.7085 | 35.6923 ± 3.6602 | 47.3846 ± 14.5002b |
| High dose ASMq group | 33.0000 ± 11.4367 | 32.7143 ± 3.4016 | 32.6667 ± 4.7609 | 64.5714 ± 7.9132 |
| F value | 3.296 | 2.962 | 10.036 | 19.146 |
| P value | 0.006 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 0 |
as normal group, P < 0.05; bvs ASS model group, P < 0.05.
Figure 3IHC analysis of the changes in vWF (A), SERPINA (B) and NAP1L4 (C) in healthy controls, ASS treatment controls and ASMq groups. Normal hepatic cells (healthy group) showing no immunostaining of (A) vWF (B) SERPINA and (C) NAP1L4 expression. Hepatocellular carcinoma cell (ASS treatment control group) showing strong (A) vWF (B) SERPINA and (C) NAP1L4 staining, while hepatocellular carcinoma cell (medium ASMq group) showed intermediate staining(magnification X400).