| Literature DB >> 27356757 |
Huijuan Wang1,2, Hailong Zhang1,2, Pengchi Deng3, Chunqi Liu2, Dandan Li2, Hui Jie2, Hu Zhang4, Zongguang Zhou5, Ying-Lan Zhao6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the fourth most common cancer and the second most deadly cancer worldwide. Study on molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis will play a significant role in diagnosing and treating gastric cancer. Metabolic profiling may offer the opportunity to understand the molecular mechanism of carcinogenesis and help to identify the potential biomarkers for the early diagnosis of gastric cancer.Entities:
Keywords: 1H-NMR; Gastric cancer; Metabolic profiling; Tissue
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27356757 PMCID: PMC4928316 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2356-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinical information for gastric cancer patients and normal controls analyzed by 1H NMR
| Gastricl cancer patients | Normal controls | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | 125 | 54 |
| Age (median, range) | 60 28–86 | 61 28–80 |
| Male/female ration | 91/34 | 39/15 |
| Histology | Adenocarcinoma (120) | ∕ |
| NA (5) | ||
| Pathologic grade | ∕ | |
| PD | 74 | |
| MD | 46 | |
| WD | 0 | |
| NA | 5 | |
| Cancer stage/Duke | ∕ | |
| I/A (30) | T1N0M0 (7) | |
| T1N1M0 (4) | ||
| T2N0M0 (19) | ||
| II/B (46) | T2N1M0 (5) | |
| T3N0M0 (15) | ||
| T2N2M0 (1) | ||
| T3N1M0 (12) | ||
| T4aN0M0 (13) | ||
| III/C (37) | T2N3M0 (3) | |
| T3N2M0 (10) | ||
| T4aN1M0 (8) | ||
| T4aN2M0 (9) | ||
| T4aN3aM0 (1) | ||
| T4bN1M0 (4) | ||
| T4bN2M0 (2) | ||
| IV/D (12) | T2N1M1 (1) | |
| T3N1M1 (1) | ||
| T3N2M1 (4) | ||
| T3N3aM1 (2) | ||
| T4aN3aM1 (4) |
PD poorly differentiated, MD moderately differentiated, WD well-differentiated, NA not applicable
Fig. 1600 MHz representative 1H NMR spectra (δ9.5–δ0.5) of tissue samples. a means normal control, (b) means gastric cancer tissue
Fig. 2Metabolic profiling between gastric cancer tissues and normal controls. a OPLS-DA scores plot between the gastric cancer tissues and normal controls using 1H NMR. Black triangles represent normal controls, red blocks represent stage I of gastric cancer tissues, blue blocks represent stage II, green blocks represent stage III, yellow blocks represent stage IV. b Statistical validation of the corresponding PLS-DA model using permutation analysis (200 times). R2 is the explained variance, and Q2 is the predictive ability of the model. c ROC analysis was performed using the Y-predicted value determined by the OPLS-DA model. AUC value of this OPLS-DA model was 0.945. d The color map showed the significance of metabolite variations between the two classes. The color close to blue means the trend of metabolite change was smaller, The color close to red means the trend of metabolite change is bigger. The color value represents the relative degree of metabolite changes. Peaks in the positive direction indicate the increased metabolites in gastric cancer tissues in comparison to normal controls. Peaks in the negative direction indicate the decreased metabolites
Differential Metabolites derived from OPLS-DA model of 1H NMR analysis between gastric cancer patients and normal controls
| Metabolites | Chemical shift | Mutiplicitya | Gastric cancer vs Normal control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (ppm) | VIPb | FCc |
| Adjust | FDR | ||
| 1 VLDL: C | 0.892 | br | 1.15 | −1.31 | 0.015 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| 2 Isoleucine | 0.942 | t | 2.35 | 1.12 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 1.014 | d | 3.05 | 1.37 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 3 Leucine | 0.96 | t | 2.28 | 1.02 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 4 Valine | 0.99 | d | 2.81 | 1.12 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 1.01 | d | 2.81 | 1.10 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 5 β-hydroxybutyrate | 1.2 | d | 1.03 | −1.31 | 0.002 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 4.16 | d | 2.27 | −1.02 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 6 Lactate | 1.33 | d | 3.62 | 1.22 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 4.11 | q | 2.14 | 1.16 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 7 2-Hydroxyisobutyric acid | 1.44 | s | 1.26 | −1.02 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 8 Citrulline | 1.57 | m | 2.51 | −2.25 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 9 VLDL: −C | 1.58 | br | 2.64 | −1.76 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 10 Acetate | 1.93 | s | 2.24 | −1.19 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 11 N-Acetyl glycoprotein | 2.05 | s | 1.81 | 1.14 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 12 O-Acetyl glycoprotein | 2.07 | s | 3.32 | 2.10 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 13 D-ribose | 2.23 | s | 1.84 | −1.56 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 14 Acetone | 2.23 | s | 1.84 | −1.56 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 15 Lipid,-C | 2.26 | br | 1.87 | −1.18 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 16 Acetoacetate | 2.28 | s | 1.34 | −1.16 | 0.019 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| 17 Acetoacetic acid | 2.31 | s | 1.50 | −1.30 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 18 Glutamate | 2.356 | m | 2.65 | 1.29 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3.768 | m | 2.52 | 1.18 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 19 Succinate | 2.41 | s | 2.66 | 1.01 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 20 Glutamine | 2.45 | m | 2.24 | 1.02 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 21 Glutathione | 2.56 | m | 2.41 | 1.51 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 2.96 | m | 2.28 | 1.45 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 22 Methylamine | 2.59 | s | 2.03 | 2.26 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 23 Aspartate | 2.68 | dd | 1.38 | 1.54 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 2.82 | dd | 1.62 | 1.56 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 24 Dimethylamine | 2.732 | s | 1.43 | 1.02 | 0.040 | 0.045 | 0.045 |
| 25 Acetic acid | 3.00 | s | 1.99 | −1.09 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.119 |
| 26 Phosphocreatine | 3.04 | s | 1.95 | −1.08 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3.93 | s | 1.12 | −1.08 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 27 Creatine | 3.04 | s | 1.95 | −1.08 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3.94 | s | 1.12 | −1.08 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 28 Ceatinine | 3.04 | s | 1.95 | −1.08 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3.448 | s | 1.03 | −1.00 | 0.004 | 0.017 | 0.007 | |
| 29 Choline | 3.2 | s | 1.33 | −1.34 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| 30 PC (phosphochline) | 3.21 | s | 1.78 | −1.38 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 31 Trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) | 3.27 | s | 1.67 | 1.71 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 32 myo-Inositol | 3.54 | dd | 2.69 | −1.68 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 3.63 | t | 2.73 | −1.42 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 4.06 | m | 2.71 | −1.49 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 33 α-Glucose | 3.54 | dd | 2.69 | −1.68 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 5.23 | d | 2.98 | −2.83 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 34 Glycine | 3.57 | s | 1.89 | −1.33 | 0.056 | 0.040 | 0.046 |
| 35 Glycerol | 3.65 | dd | 2.27 | −1.51 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 36 Dimethylglycine | 3.71 | s | 2.90 | −2.18 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 37 Lysine | 3.77 | m | 2.52 | 1.18 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 38 Glycolate | 3.93 | s | 1.12 | −1.08 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 39 Serine | 3.98 | m | 2.14 | 1.10 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 40 Uracil | 5.8 | d | 2.16 | 4.89 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 7.54 | d | 2.11 | 2.33 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 41 Fumarate | 6.53 | s | 1.23 | 1.20 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 42 4-hydroxyphenylactate | 6.88 | d | 2.40 | 1.51 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 7.18 | d | 2.59 | 1.22 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| 43 Tyrosine | 6.9 | d | 2.40 | 1.53 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 7.2 | d | 2.59 | 1.22 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.031 | |
| 44 Trytophan | 7.29 | m | 1.36 | −1.39 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 45 Phenyacetylglutamine | 7.42 | m | 2.55 | 1.11 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 46 Adenine | 8.12 | m | 1.26 | 1.21 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 47 Hypoxanthine | 8.18 | s | 1.48 | −1.08 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 8.21 | s | 1.48 | −1.42 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | |
| 48 Formate | 8.44 | s | 1.39 | −1.04 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
aMultiplicity: s singlet, d doublet, t triplet, q quartet, dd doublet of doublets, m multiplet, br broad; bVariable importance in the projection was obtained from OPLS-DA model with a threshold of 1.0. cFold change (FC) between gastric cancer patients and normal controls. Fold change with a positive value indicates a relatively higher concentration present in gastric cancer patients while a negative value means a relatively lower concentration as compared to the normal controls. d P-value obtained from Student’s t-test
Fig. 3Metabolic profiling between different stages of gastric cancer tissues and normal controls. a OPLS-DA scores plots based on each stages of gastric cancer tissues and normal controls. b Statistical validation of the corresponding PLS-DA models using permutation analysis (200 times). R2 is the explained variance, and Q2 is the predictive ability of the model. c Color map showed the significance of metabolite variations between the classes. Peaks in the positive direction indicated the increased metabolites in gastric cancer tissues. Decreased metabolites in gastric cancer tissues were presented as peaks in the negative direction. d ROC analysis was performed using the Y-predicted value determined by the OPLS-DA model between the classes
Fig. 4Metabolic pathway of significantly changed metabolites between gastric cancers and normal controls. The up arrows represent the metabolites increased in the gastric cancer tissues in comparison to normal controls. The down arrows represent the metabolites decreased in the gastric cancer tissues. Dashed lines surrounding compounds mean not measured or not significant between two groups